## Ranking Parameters

**Fidelity**

- Fidelity Bond Value

**Liquidity**

- Liquidity Amount - Maximum available liquidity

**Performance**

- Failure Count

**Quality and Trust** - Optional

- Uptime Percentage
- Recent Activity Level - Weekly swap volume

## Scoring Formula

Score = (0.5 * f_fidelity(bond_value)) + 
        (0.3 * f_failure(total_failures)) + 
        (0.2 * f_liquidity(max_size))

Where:
f_fidelity(x) = 1 / (1 + e^(-(x - median_fid) / s_fid))
f_failure(x) = 1 / (1 + e^(x - f_thresh))  
f_liquidity(x) = 1 / (1 + e^(-(x - median_liq) / s_liq))

Parameters:
median_fid = 0.3 BTC        # Network median bond value
s_fid = 0.15               # Fidelity scaling factor  
f_thresh = 4               # Failure threshold
median_liq = 20M sats      # Network median max size
s_liq = 10                 # Liquidity scaling factor

### Fidelity Score

This score is based on a sigmoid function centered at the network's median bond. Makers with bonds below the median are scored less, while those with higher than median bonds are rewarded but with diminishing returns so that no single maker can dominate solely through capital.
### Failure Penalty Score

Makers begin with a perfect score, and each recorded failure reduces it. The penalty increases with each failure, with a threshold of around four failures where a maker’s reputation becomes significantly compromised. This allows for occasional mistakes without immediate blacklisted
### Liquidity Score

This score reflects how much swap volume a maker can handle. Makers offering more liquidity will score higher, but there are diminishing returns, so big players don’t completely outshine smaller & reliable ones. Makers with very low liquidity will score lower, since the network values those who can handle real volume