certusone
/
cosmos-sdk
mirror of https://github.com/certusone/cosmos-sdk.git
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Address PR review

This commit is contained in:
Aleksandr Bezobchuk 2018-11-13 09:02:19 -05:00
parent 795a76d489
commit 46b331de07
1 changed files with 11 additions and 10 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

21
docs/spec/distribution/overview.md
View File

@ -3,7 +3,7 @@
## Overview
This _simple_ distribution mechanism describes a functional way to passively
distribute rewards between validators and delegators. Note, that this mechanism does
distribute rewards between validators and delegators. Note that this mechanism does
not distribute funds in as precisely as active reward distribution mechanisms and
will therefore be upgraded in the future.
@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ 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.
to, leaving nothing in the pool.
- Whenever bonding, unbonding, or re-delegating tokens to an existing account, a
full withdrawal of the rewards must occur (as the rules for lazy accounting
change).
@ -54,20 +54,21 @@ 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 go up,
If you happen to know that incoming rewards are about to significantly go up,
you are incentivized to not withdraw until after this event, increasing the
worth of your existing _accum_.
worth of your existing _accum_. See [#2764](https://github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/issues/2764)
for further details.
## 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 mechanisms are mutually
exclusive. If there are Atom commissions and auto-bonding Atoms, the portion
of Atoms in the reward distribution calculation would become very large as the Atom
portion for each delegator would change each block making a withdrawal of rewards
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
problematic within BPoS. Fundamentally, these two mechanisms are mutually
exclusive. If there are both commissions and auto-bonding on the staking token,
the amount of staking tokens each validator and delegator has would change each
block, so we would have to iterate through all of them.
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 rewards.