This.

I wouldn’t worry, vetting periods vary a little depending on traffic and how many nodes there are in vetting. It also speeds up over time. So most of the satellites are actually quite a bit passed the halfway point with these numbers.

If I calculated correctly, the best approximation is actually:

progress = ln(2x+1)/ln(201)

(don’t ask how I got there…)

Plugging in your numbers:

35 => 80%

33 => 79%

30 => 78%

6 => 48%

7 => 51%

I might need to correct this a little for audits that are specifically initiated to target unvetted nodes, depending on how those work. So I may need to tune this is little bit, but I might actually include this formula in the earnings calculator to give a better idea of progress than the raw number of audits.

~~Edit: Ok, looked it up and actually, audit now picks nodes at random and then audits a random piece. This was done to ensure all nodes get audits. But, since every piece has on average about 66 pieces and only 1 piece is determined this way, the other on average 65 pieces audited still get selected relatively randomly and based on the amount of data stored you get hit more often. So, my calculation was correct for roughly 65 out of 66 pieces or 98.5%. The other 1.5% is linear. It hardly seems worth it to correct for that given the small difference, but I did the work, so I might as well post it.~~

New formula:

progress = 98.5% * ln(2x+1)/ln(201) + 1.5%*(x/100)

Plugging in your numbers:

35 => 80%

33 => 79%

**30 => 77%**

6 => 48%

**7 => 50%**

In the rounded percentages only 2 changed… so yeah, basically wasted effort to add in the linear element. Ok, that’s enough math for today.

Edit2: The above needed adjustment, to account for the fact that the percentages of what’s linear vs logarithmic would work for a node with an average amount of data, but of course nodes in vetting have a below average amount. I’ll spare the actual calculation and just say that I used estimates from the earnings estimator combined with the average data stored per node from the new public stats (thanks Storj Labs!) to calculate that a 90%/10% split is more representative. Though we are now stacking estimates on estimates…

New formula:

progress = 90% * ln(2x+1)/ln(201) + 10%*(x/100)

Plugging in your numbers:

35 => 75%

33 => 75%

30 => 73%

6 => 44%

7 => 47%

This actually feels more accurate to what I’ve seen in the past. And the conclusion remains the same for the most part.

If this is after 6 weeks, I would expect the highest scoring ones to take about 2 weeks more. And the lowest scoring ones maybe 6-8 weeks more. Do report back if that was accurate. As I think showing progress numbers that are linear would be a great improvement in the earnings calculator.

Edit3: Since this is based on some estimates and given that the following gives pretty much the same line (with at most a 2% deviation), I will probably simplify it to the following if I’ll implement it in the earnings calculator.

progress = ln(x+1)/ln(101)

Which generalizes to:

progress = ln(x+1)/ln(n+1)

With n being the number of required audits.

Which ironically, is where I started this whole story with just a guess on what the curve might be like before I started to complicate things with actual calculations.