More cleanup
This commit is contained in:
parent
338b49b2cd
commit
795a76d489
|
@ -54,7 +54,7 @@ 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,
|
||||
If you happen to know that incoming rewards are about significantly go up,
|
||||
you are incentivized to not withdraw until after this event, increasing the
|
||||
worth of your existing _accum_.
|
||||
|
||||
|
@ -62,12 +62,12 @@ worth of your existing _accum_.
|
|||
|
||||
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
|
||||
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
|
||||
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
|
||||
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.
|
||||
to set up a script to periodically withdraw and rebond rewards.
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue