Thanks for your proposal. We welcome an open discussion around our choices and appreciate constructive feedback. It is true that we value uptime more than amount staked as @guy described in the other post.
I ran some very raw calculations to see how your suggestion changes the dynamics of scoring and came to the conclusion that introducing a minimum uptime criteria may actually be a better approach
Let’s go over the following example - (left as is scoring, right scoring you proposed)
Option 1 (as-is): Worker A with 25K ENG and 95% uptime loses to a worker with 50K ENG and 70% uptime. I tend to agree (personal opinion) that there are better ways to ensure network health
Option 2 (your proposal): Same worker A now beats Worker B who has 50K ENG and 80% up time and Worker C who has 100K ENG and 70% uptime
An alternative is to say (making up numbers for now, do not quote me on this being the new selection method), only workers with more than 90% uptime and minimum of 30 days are eligible for scoring in Genesis game… this will mean that Worker A (in as-is scenario) can beat many more workers who have higher stake but perform below the threshold uptime level.
I am happy to consider this idea and get more feedback around this