Validator Award Addition #40
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks! The new page
- is a composite of frame/staking/README.md and this comment
- lacks the original formatting
- should appear as sub-page in a new folder Validation similar to Content Directory
|
Changed a few lines of text to capitalize |
Document formatting
text formatting
text formatting
text formatting
text formatting
text formatting
text formatting
text formatting
text formatting
text formatting
text formatting
|
I have implemented the recommendations
пт, 30 июн. 2023 г. в 12:01, l1.media ***@***.***>:
… ***@***.**** requested changes on this pull request.
Ok, until JSG reviews this. My suggestions:
- replace the README.me with validation.md
- rename validator_reward.md to Reward-calculation.md
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#40 (review)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AIZBVPARXQWFMG2GA34KD4DXN2IX5ANCNFSM6AAAAAAZKIT2UA>
.
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
goooooproject
changed the title
goooooproject
changed the title
system/validator_revard/README.md
Outdated
| @@ -0,0 +1,5 @@ | |||
| The purpose of the supplement. It was found that the guide is missing information about validator awards. | |||
| The information was taken from the joystream documents on this topic and from the polkadot handbook. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The text here is more like a changelog entry and could be turned into a line in the actual CHANGELOG.
Note that folder has to be named validation.
The content of this file should be replaced by validation.md with a mention of the new guide for rewards calculation.
Also in my eyes it's worth mentioning this section for further info at the topic of the reward calculation guide: https://github.com/Joystream/substrate/blob/master/frame/staking/README.md#reward-calculation
|
|
||
| The validator can declare an amount, named commission, that does not get shared with the nominators at each reward payout through its ValidatorPrefs. This value gets deducted from the total reward that is paid to the validator and its nominators. The remaining portion is split among the validator and all of the nominators that nominated the validator, proportional to the value staked behind this validator (i.e. dividing the own or others by total in Exposure). | ||
|
|
||
| ## All entities who receive a reward have the option to choose their reward destination through the Payee storage item (see set_payee), to be one of the following: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This and the one right above should not appear as heading but norm text. If you want to emphasize it you could use **bold** formatting but it may not be necessary.
| Payout for each validator (v1 - v4): | ||
| p / v = 8 / 4 = 2 tokens | ||
|
|
||
| ### Note that this is different than most other Proof-of-Stake systems such as Cosmos. As long as a validator is in the validator set, it will receive the same block reward as every other validator. Validator v1, who had 18 tokens staked, received the same reward (2 tokens) in this era as v4 who had only 7 tokens staked. |
|
|
||
| Each validator in the example has selected a different validator payment (that is, a percentage of the reward set aside directly for the validator before sharing with all bonded stake). The validator's payment percentage (in joys) is listed in brackets ([]) next to each validator. Note that since the validator payment is public knowledge, having a low or non-existent validator payment may attract more stake from nominators, since they know they will receive a larger reward. | ||
|
|
||
| **Validator Set Size (v): 4** |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This whole section is very hard to follow in my eyes. Also take an example of this forum entry how a good guide can look like.
Thinking about it maybe the validator forum category may indeed be a better place for this, wdyt @bedeho?
|
|
||
| ### Advanced Setup | ||
|
|
||
| `TODO` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's a good opportunity to at least link our setup guide on the community repo (storage and distribution) maintained by leads.
Also this while file should be renamed README.md
Changed the file name from validator.md to README.md
removed the highlighting
removed the highlighting
|
Why shouldnt this be part of validation system article which is already there? It does not make sense ot make a new article for every topic. |
I think this is an improvement because there is no information on validator rewards in one place I have added a validator_revard.md file with a detailed explanation.