docs: Tokenomics #1726
docs: Tokenomics #1726
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm somehow missing the notion of the rewards threshold from the new figure. Maybe we could have the computation fees arrow merge with the staking rewards arrow and visually represent somehow that what comes out of these two is always the constant reward which goes to delegators and validators.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think if we have an arrow from computation fees to the rewards it is actually misleading because it implies that the amount of computation fees has an effect on the staking rewards. The way it has been implemented, the staking rewards are independent of the computation rewards, so I think this is the clearest way to represent it. In reality, we don't burn the entire fees and mint the entire reward, we take the difference and mint/burn accordingly, but that is an implementation detail imo
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I actually thought we were going to do it differently tbh, but I changed the figure from what we had in the tokenomics report because the arrow from computation fees to the reward bucker was essentially removed in the implementation. I thought we were going to have a "tip" component of the fee which would go to the validators as a prioritisation mechanism, rather than being burned, so this would increase their overall reward, and be more like the diagram in the tokenomics report with an arrow from fees to rewards.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I tend to agree with Andrew on his explanation. The implementation does not technically burn the fees, but in practice what we are doing is mimicking fee burning (which is what Andrew drew in the figure). I think merging those arrows will make it difficult for the reader to get what we do in practice, unless we make the figure super complete (which IMO is unnecessary, given that Andrew already drew something quite clean and clear)
Co-authored-by: Philipp Gackstatter <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Philipp Gackstatter <[email protected]>
|
Would you mind including an update to the rewards section in |
vekkiokonio
force-pushed
the
docs/tokenomics
branch
from
3f6fcc4 to
06cbe29
Compare
vekkiokonio
force-pushed
the
docs/tokenomics
branch
from
06cbe29 to
352d160
Compare
|
✅ Vercel Preview Deployment is ready! |
* feat(docs): gas-in-iota.mdx was corrected * fix(docs): review comments were corrected * fix(docs): review comments were fixed
|
✅ Vercel Preview Deployment is ready! |
|
✅ Vercel Preview Deployment is ready! |
|
✅ Vercel Preview Deployment is ready! |
|
✅ Vercel Preview Deployment is ready! |
Description of change
Review of the tokenomics-related docs by the tokenomics taskforce (@cyberphysic4l, @vekkiokonio and @oliviasaa)
Links to any relevant issues
#1407
Type of change
Choose a type of change, and delete any options that are not relevant.