CIP: lockup account & staking rewards #253
Conversation
tac0turtle
changed the title
|
suggest including the option to apply a reward-rate discount for staking locked tokens protocol is overpaying for security, since it's much easier to attract locked tokens to staking than unlocked |
| @@ -0,0 +1,157 @@ | |||
|
|
|||
| | cip | XX | | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
re: filename, would suggest leaving un-numbered until this is ready for review.
nit: https://cips.celestia.org/cip-template.html
Note: READ CIP-1 BEFORE USING THIS TEMPLATE! This is the suggested template for new CIPs. After you have filled in the requisite fields, please delete these comments. Note that an CIP number will be assigned by an editor. When opening a pull request to submit your CIP, please use an abbreviated title in the filename, cip-draft_title_abbrev.md. The title should be 44 characters or less. It should not repeat the CIP number in title, irrespective of the category.
|
|
||
| # Backwards Compatibility | ||
|
|
||
| No backwards incompatibilities are introduced for non-lockup accounts. Existing lockup accounts not subject to the new reward integration will continue to operate as before. For accounts that do use the new functionality, the changes are additive and maintain the original lockup semantics. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Existing lockup accounts not subject to the new reward integration will continue to operate as before.
Which existing lockup accounts are not subject to this CIP? It's not entirely clear to me if this CIP impacts existing lockup accounts or only newly created lockup accounts. I assume the former but then this sentence doesn't make sense to me.
| - **If it is:** | ||
| - Verify that it is of a modifiable lockup type. | ||
| - Calculate the new lockup amount: | ||
| `New Lockup Amount = Original Lockup Amount + Claimed Rewards` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
[question] In this context is "Claimed Rewards" only applicable to the claimed rewards at a particular moment in time? Put another way, this CIP only impacts claimed rewards after this feature has been added. Lockup accounts that have already claimed staking rewards (i.e. on celestia-app v3) don't contribute to the "Claimed Rewards" in this calculation.
| # Parameters | ||
|
|
||
| When upgrading to v4 we propose introducing a migration that will set the Parameter in [`x/Staking`](https://github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/blob/release/v0.50.x/x/staking/types/staking.pb.go#L934) to 25% disallowing new validators from creating validators with \>25% commission rates. | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
2 questions:
-
do I misunderstand the parameter in the referenced GOlang file or is the line item referring to a minimum commission, as opposed to a maximum commission that you are proposing?
-
So somebody operating an active validator today with delegations today with a 100% commission set (e.g., for anti-money laundering reasons) would not be affected by this change for the existing validator? But if that operator wants to split his delegations to 2 validators (e.g., to mitigate slashing impact radius), the newly created validator would be restricted to a maximum 25% commission?
Overview
This CIP proposes modifying lockup accounts to account for staking rewards. The change will modify lockup accounts total amount and how much is unlocked.