55 lines
2.7 KiB
Markdown
55 lines
2.7 KiB
Markdown
|
# Distribution
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Overview
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Collected fees are pooled globally and divided out passively to validators and
|
||
|
|
delegators. Each validator has the opportunity to charge commission to the
|
||
|
|
delegators on the fees collected on behalf of the delegators by the validators.
|
||
|
|
Fees are paid directly into a global fee pool, and validator proposer-reward
|
||
|
|
pool. Due to the nature of passive accounting whenever changes to parameters
|
||
|
|
which affect the rate of fee distribution occurs, withdrawal of fees must also
|
||
|
|
occur when:
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
- withdrawing one must withdrawal the maximum amount they are entitled
|
||
|
|
too, leaving nothing in the pool,
|
||
|
|
- bonding, unbonding, or re-delegating tokens to an existing account a
|
||
|
|
full withdrawal of the fees must occur (as the rules for lazy accounting
|
||
|
|
change),
|
||
|
|
- a validator chooses to change the commission on fees, all accumulated
|
||
|
|
commission fees must be simultaneously withdrawn.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
The above scenarios are covered in `triggers.md`.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
The distribution mechanism outlines herein is used to lazily distribute the
|
||
|
|
following between validators and associated delegators:
|
||
|
|
- 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
|
||
|
|
proposer-reward pools. The mechanisms used allow for validators and delegators
|
||
|
|
to independently and lazily withdrawn their rewards. As a part of the lazy
|
||
|
|
computations adjustment factors must be maintained for each validator and
|
||
|
|
delegator to determine the true proportion of fees in each pool which they are
|
||
|
|
entitled too. Adjustment factors are updated every time a validator or
|
||
|
|
delegator's voting power changes. Validators and delegators must withdraw all
|
||
|
|
fees they are entitled too before they can change their portion of bonded
|
||
|
|
Atoms.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Affect on Staking
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Charging commission on Atom provisions while also allowing for Atom-provisions
|
||
|
|
to be auto-bonded (distributed directly to the validators bonded stake) is
|
||
|
|
problematic within DPoS. Fundamentally these two mechnisms are mutually
|
||
|
|
exclusive. If there are atoms commissions and auto-bonding Atoms, the portion
|
||
|
|
of Atoms the fee distribution calculation would become very large as the Atom
|
||
|
|
portion for each delegator would change each block making a withdrawal of fees
|
||
|
|
for a delegator require a calculation for every single block since the last
|
||
|
|
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
|
||
|
|
implement the former. Stakeholders wishing to rebond their provisions may elect
|
||
|
|
to set up a script to periodically withdraw and rebond fees.
|
||
|
|
|