A payout factor of 1 is a policy parameter, not a promise of an attractive return. Atomic Classic pairs that factor with a new target horizon, different score multipliers and separately funded round positions.
Revised September 8, 2026. The old universal CORJ60 formula and factor-quartile investment guidance are withdrawn.
Read the entire payout configuration
The captured Classic round 1343 uses CORR60 × 3 and MMC60 × 15. With factor 1, the resulting position return is clipped to ±100%. Round 1342 instead used CORR20 × 0.75 and MMC × 2.25 with a legacy clip of 0.05. Those observations cannot be reduced to a comparison of payout factors alone.
Historical dilution and current atomic policy should be separate epochs. Likewise, a nullable compatibility field on an upgraded contract is not a zero factor. The round’s score configuration remains the appropriate source for the payout terms.
Factor changes do not identify a causal return premium
A historical association between factors and realized returns can reflect changing targets, participants, markets or stake levels. Dividing observed returns by the factor does not remove those differences. It also does not repair a comparison of legacy reused collateral with atomic position principal.
The return-denominator note separates position returns from committed-capital results. I would compare like-for-like policies and funding windows before interpreting a higher factor as improved capital economics.
Method: round-specific public policy captured September 8, 2026. The figure is a hypothetical payoff illustration, not a historical factor regression or a forecast. Score details are in the CORR60/MMC60 guide.