2018-08-08 03:10:21 -07:00
|
|
|
# Distribution
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Overview
|
|
|
|
|
2018-08-08 11:24:38 -07:00
|
|
|
This _simple_ distribution mechanism describes a functional way to passively
|
|
|
|
distribute rewards between validator and delegators. Note that this mechanism does
|
2018-08-20 08:50:13 -07:00
|
|
|
not distribute funds in as precisely as active reward distribution and will therefore
|
2018-08-08 11:24:38 -07:00
|
|
|
be upgraded in the future.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The mechanism operates as follows. Collected rewards are pooled globally and
|
|
|
|
divided out passively to validators and delegators. Each validator has the
|
|
|
|
opportunity to charge commission to the delegators on the rewards collected on
|
2018-08-20 08:50:13 -07:00
|
|
|
behalf of the delegators by the validators. Fees are paid directly into a
|
2018-08-08 11:24:38 -07:00
|
|
|
global reward pool, and validator proposer-reward pool. Due to the nature of
|
2018-08-20 08:50:13 -07:00
|
|
|
passive accounting, whenever changes to parameters which affect the rate of reward
|
|
|
|
distribution occurs, withdrawal of rewards must also occur.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Whenever withdrawing, one must withdraw the maximum amount they are entitled
|
|
|
|
too, leaving nothing in the pool.
|
|
|
|
- Whenever bonding, unbonding, or re-delegating tokens to an existing account, a
|
2018-08-08 11:24:38 -07:00
|
|
|
full withdrawal of the rewards must occur (as the rules for lazy accounting
|
2018-08-20 08:50:13 -07:00
|
|
|
change).
|
|
|
|
- Whenever a validator chooses to change the commission on rewards, all accumulated
|
2018-08-08 11:24:38 -07:00
|
|
|
commission rewards must be simultaneously withdrawn.
|
2018-08-08 03:10:21 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2018-08-28 15:23:57 -07:00
|
|
|
The above scenarios are covered in `hooks.md`.
|
2018-08-08 03:10:21 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The distribution mechanism outlines herein is used to lazily distribute the
|
2018-08-08 11:24:38 -07:00
|
|
|
following rewards between validators and associated delegators:
|
2018-08-08 03:10:21 -07:00
|
|
|
- multi-token fees to be socially distributed,
|
|
|
|
- proposer reward pool,
|
|
|
|
- inflated atom provisions, and
|
|
|
|
- validator commission on all rewards earned by their delegators stake
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fees are pooled within a global pool, as well as validator specific
|
2018-08-20 08:50:13 -07:00
|
|
|
proposer-reward pools. The mechanisms used allow for validators and delegators
|
|
|
|
to independently and lazily withdraw their rewards.
|
2018-08-08 11:24:38 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2018-08-23 01:02:26 -07:00
|
|
|
## Shortcomings
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As a part of the lazy computations, each delegator holds an accumulation term
|
|
|
|
specific to each validator which is used to estimate what their approximate
|
2018-09-05 16:15:15 -07:00
|
|
|
fair portion of tokens held in the global fee pool is owed to them.
|
2018-08-23 01:02:26 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
entitlement = delegator-accumulation / all-delegators-accumulation
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Under the circumstance that there were constant and equal flow of incoming
|
|
|
|
reward tokens every block, this distribution mechanism would be equal to the
|
|
|
|
active distribution (distribute individually to all delegators each block).
|
|
|
|
However this is unrealistic so deviations from the active distribution will
|
|
|
|
occur based on fluctuations of incoming reward tokens as well as timing of
|
|
|
|
reward withdrawal by other delegators.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you happen to know that incoming rewards are about significantly move up,
|
|
|
|
you are incentivized to not withdraw until after this event, increasing the
|
|
|
|
worth of your existing _accum_.
|
2018-08-08 03:10:21 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2018-08-08 11:24:38 -07:00
|
|
|
## Affect on Staking
|
|
|
|
|
2018-08-08 03:10:21 -07:00
|
|
|
Charging commission on Atom provisions while also allowing for Atom-provisions
|
|
|
|
to be auto-bonded (distributed directly to the validators bonded stake) is
|
2018-08-23 01:02:26 -07:00
|
|
|
problematic within DPoS. Fundamentally these two mechanisms are mutually
|
2018-08-20 08:50:13 -07:00
|
|
|
exclusive. If there are Atom commissions and auto-bonding Atoms, the portion
|
2018-08-08 11:24:38 -07:00
|
|
|
of Atoms the reward distribution calculation would become very large as the Atom
|
|
|
|
portion for each delegator would change each block making a withdrawal of rewards
|
2018-08-08 03:10:21 -07:00
|
|
|
for a delegator require a calculation for every single block since the last
|
2018-08-20 08:50:13 -07:00
|
|
|
withdrawal. In conclusion, we can only have Atom commission and unbonded atoms
|
|
|
|
provisions or bonded atom provisions with no Atom commission, and we elect to
|
2018-08-08 03:10:21 -07:00
|
|
|
implement the former. Stakeholders wishing to rebond their provisions may elect
|
2018-08-08 11:24:38 -07:00
|
|
|
to set up a script to periodically withdraw and rebond rewards.
|