-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
docs: Tokenomics #1726
Merged
Merged
docs: Tokenomics #1726
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
21 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
ecdc454
New diagram and reviews
cyberphysic4l fae2b32
Some typos and higher resolution diagram
cyberphysic4l 624d8fb
update economic model
oliviasaa 48e27e8
Validator Requirement
vekkiokonio d4174a4
Update docs/content/about-iota/tokenomics/proof-of-stake.mdx
oliviasaa 6739cce
Update docs/content/about-iota/tokenomics/proof-of-stake.mdx
oliviasaa 0a10b29
addressing comments
oliviasaa 3143f6c
Philipp review suggestions
cyberphysic4l b11443e
Update validator pool rewards description
vekkiokonio 352d160
remove unrelated pdfs
oliviasaa 4d628e5
add fee burning to explanation
oliviasaa 15cb562
remove info about distribution of fees
oliviasaa c8b7697
rephrase tallying rule (from total slashing to possibly a partial sla…
oliviasaa 79be361
remove mention of gas fees
oliviasaa 72bb2cd
feat(docs): gas-in-iota.mdx was corrected (#1769)
valeriyr a9de0e1
Fix Rewards Formula
vekkiokonio 892cd23
Merge branch 'develop' into docs/tokenomics
thibault-martinez f89268b
gas budget formula fix
vekkiokonio 2c2a8e8
Update docs/content/about-iota/tokenomics/iota-token.mdx
vekkiokonio e54f032
Merge branch 'develop' into docs/tokenomics
lzpap 807b6c0
fix(docs): wrong md link
lzpap File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Loading
Sorry, something went wrong. Reload?
Sorry, we cannot display this file.
Sorry, this file is invalid so it cannot be displayed.
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm somehow missing the notion of the rewards threshold from the new figure. Maybe we could have the
computation fees
arrow merge with thestaking 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.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
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.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
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.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
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)