## 7 Experiment and Analysis
### Evaluation of Participation Assessment Algorithm  
In the evaluation of the participation assessment algorithm, the network was assumed to consist of 100 user nodes and 20 maintainer nodes. Users were categorized into five groups based on their levels of participation: A, B, C, D, and E. It was assumed that all users randomly chose maintainer nodes when voting, with each maintainer having an equal probability of being selected as a committee member or proposer.  
Figure 5 demonstrates the changes in the average \(PV\) of each group of users. In Figure 5a, assuming equal levels of participation across the five user groups, we observed the accumulation of \(PV\) for each group. The average \(PV\) for each group varied with increasing block height, depicted by different colored curves in the graph. A bar chart represented the mean \(PV\) for each user group throughout the entire test. It was observed that the average \(PV\) changes among the five groups with equal levels of participation were relatively similar. The average \(PV\) for the A, B, C, D, and E groups throughout the test were 1433, 1424, 1409, 1642, and 1474, respectively, without obvious disparities. This demonstrates the fairness of the user participation assessment mechanism within the NexoNet, indicating that all users with similar levels of participation can accumulate an equal amount of \(PV\).  
Figure 5b shows that Group A users exhibit a significantly higher propensity for content creation, characterized by the frequency and quality of their published content, whereas Groups B, C, and D demonstrate progressively lower capabilities in this regard, with Group E participants only participating in the acquisition and evaluation of content, abstaining from any content publishing. An assessment of the \(PV\) among these five groups revealed that the average participation scores for Groups A through D throughout the test phase were 1842, 1384, 986, and 781, respectively. In contrast, Group E's participation, limited to content purchase and evaluation without content publishing, was marked by a comparatively diminished level of participation, averaging at a mere 176. From the initiation of the test through to the completion of 1000 rounds of consensus, the mean \(PV\) for the five groups witnessed a cumulative increase upon joining the system, achieving a dynamic equilibrium within a range commensurate with their creative capacities after approximately 100 rounds of consensus. The average \(PV\) of each group fluctuated; this fluctuation was attributed to the transformation of the entirety of the staked \(PV\) into block transaction fee rewards subsequent to the successful voting on the proposer, with  
Figure 5: Changes in the average PV: (**a**) 5 user groups with equal levels of participation; (**b**) 5 user groups with different levels of participation.  
the outcomes of these electoral processes being inherently random, thus instigating the volatility in \(PV\).  
To further assess the significance of the differences in the \(PV\) among the five user groups (A, B, C, D, E), an ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) test was conducted. The test compared the average \(PV\) across the groups to determine if there are statistically significant differences in user participation. The results of the ANOVA test indicated a significant difference between the groups (F = 50.32, \(p<0.001\)), confirming that user participation levels, as measured by the \(PV\), vary significantly across the groups. Group A, characterized by higher content creation activity, displayed a significantly higher \(PV\) compared to Group E, which primarily engaged in content evaluation and purchasing.  
The comparative analysis of the cumulative average \(PV\) across users of varying creative capacities underscores the efficacy and rationality of the user participation assessment mechanism within the NexoNet, affirming that the accumulation of PV serves as a reflective measure of the user level and participation within the system.