expand on shortcomings of the system
This commit is contained in:
parent
b32285ec3b
commit
cce4cbc9ec
|
@ -36,20 +36,32 @@ 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 withdraw their rewards.
|
||||
|
||||
As a part of the lazy computations, each validator and delegator holds an
|
||||
accumulation term which is used to estimate what their approximate fair portion
|
||||
of tokens held in the global pool is owed to them. This approximation of owed
|
||||
rewards would be equivalent to the active distribution under the situation that
|
||||
there was a constant flow of incoming reward tokens every block. Because this
|
||||
is not the case, the approximation of owed rewards will deviate from the active
|
||||
distribution based on fluctuations of incoming reward tokens as well as timing
|
||||
of reward withdrawal by other delegators and validators from the reward pool.
|
||||
## 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
|
||||
fair portion of tokens held in the global pool is owed to them.
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
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_.
|
||||
|
||||
## 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
|
||||
problematic within DPoS. Fundamentally these two mechanisms are mutually
|
||||
exclusive. If there are Atom commissions and auto-bonding Atoms, the portion
|
||||
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
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue