Hey mates I'm a first time Clamhead here and I've got a little question to ask some professionals.  For the staking of my CLAMS is it better to put them all in 1 CLAM chunks opposed to putting them all in one big chunk or several big chunks? I just would like to know the most optimal way to stake them if someone would be ever so kind as to give me their honest opinion Cheers

The only reason to split your outputs up into smaller pieces is to reduce the effect of the 8 hour delay after staking. Suppose you're happy with the 8 hour delay being 1% of the time your coins are staking, so you only lose 1% to the delay. That means you would want the expected staking time for your outputs to be 800 hours each. The total network staking weight is currently around 700k, and the total network stakes 60 blocks per hour:

So we can calculate the size an output needs to be to have an expected time to stake of 800 hours. Then it will spend just 1% of its time maturing:

>>> weight = 700e3
>>> loss = 0.01
>>> delay = 8
>>> weight * loss / delay / 60
14.58333

There it is. You need to split your balance into pieces of size 14.6 CLAMs if you're happy to accept a 1% loss due to maturation delays.

>>> loss = 0.05
>>> weight * loss / delay / 60
72.91666

If you're happy to lose 5% to maturation delays, you can get away with staking with bigger outputs (size 73 CLAMs each). And so on.

To check my math I looked at the JD staking wallet.

It has 562819 CLAMs split into 32351 outputs very roughly the same size. The average output size is 17.397 CLAMs.

Currently, of the 562819 CLAM balance, 554969 is mature and 7850 is waiting to mature. So that's 1.39% of the balance that is currently waiting.

>>> loss = 0.0139
>>> weight * loss / delay / 60
20.270833

According to my calculations I would expect a 1.39% loss like that with outputs of size 20, so I'm doing a little worse than predicted. That probably means my guess for the total network staking weight was a bit wrong. If I change my guess to 600k it fits much better:

>>> weight = 600e3
>>> weight * loss / delay / 60
17.375

But can that be right? JD is staking 590k on its own.

Checking the rich list shows that other than JD there aren't many big addresses, and other than bitdice's 7k most of the other big addresses aren't staking (presumably being in poloniex's wallet, which we know doesn't stake).

It's look like maybe JD is much closer to 100% of the network staking weight than I previously thought, and the JD staking wallet's biggest competitor is the JD hot wallet...