We often receive questions about Qubic reward estimates—especially when actual returns appear lower than expected. Unlike many other blockchains, Qubic operates under a unique reward system. In this article, we’ll explain how it works, why discrepancies can occur, and what sets Qubic apart from more conventional blockchain models.

Most blockchains distribute rewards on a per-block basis. To maintain a steady flow of blocks, they rely on a target block time. If blocks are produced too quickly, the difficulty increases; if they take too long, the difficulty decreases. Qubic operates on a completely different model. Instead of rewarding individual blocks, it qualifies 676 computors each week, based on their performance during the epoch (which lasts one week), emissions are distributed. At the end of the epoch, these top-performing computors—those with the most valid solutions, and in the top 676 rank—receive rewards. As of the time of writing, each qualifying computor is awarded 1,074,807,693 QUBIC In most blockchains, the more hashrate a mining pool has, the more blocks it finds—and consequently, the more rewards it earns. In Qubic, however, the key factor isn't hashrate, but the number of qualifying computors a pool maintains. For example, if two pools each have two qualifying computors, but Pool A has half the hashrate of Pool B, Pool A will actually distribute twice as much QUBIC per unit of hashrate compared to Pool B. This is because rewards are distributed equally among qualifying computors, regardless of the hashrate behind them. It's also important to note that rewards are paid out one week after the epoch ends: mining activity during the current week determines qualification, while the actual reward is distributed after the following epoch. Our reward estimates are based on overall network metrics—not the performance of any single pool. As explained earlier, unlike traditional blockchains where higher hashrate typically results in more rewards, Qubic's model doesn’t follow this pattern. A pool with significantly more hashrate won’t necessarily earn more, since rewards are tied to the number of qualifying computors, not raw hashing power. Because of this, the variation in earnings between pools can be much greater than what users might expect when mining other cryptocurrencies.


Qubic introduces a fundamentally different approach to mining rewards compared to traditional blockchains. Rather than relying on hashrate and per-block rewards, Qubic focuses on computor qualification over a fixed epoch period. This shift means that more hashrate doesn’t necessarily translate to more earnings—especially if that hashrate isn’t consistent—what truly matters is how many computors a pool can qualify. Because of this unique reward structure, users may notice greater discrepancies in returns between mining pools than they’re used to with other cryptocurrencies. Our estimates reflect overall network conditions, but due to the way Qubic distributes rewards, actual returns can vary significantly from pool to pool. Understanding these mechanics is key to setting the right expectations and making informed decisions when mining Qubic.