[Tokenomics] Implement Global Mint Reimbursement Request #878
Conversation
…Invalid_SupplierExceedsMaxClaimableAmount
…_pokt_reimbursement_request
…_pokt_reimbursement_request
red-0ne
added
application
| proofParams := s.keepers.ProofKeeper.GetParams(s.ctx) | ||
| proofParams.ProofRequestProbability = 0 | ||
| proofRequirementThreshold := cosmostypes.NewInt64Coin(volatile.DenomuPOKT, math.MaxInt64) | ||
| proofParams.ProofRequirementThreshold = &proofRequirementThreshold | ||
| s.keepers.ProofKeeper.SetParams(s.ctx, proofParams) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Wdyt about extracting this to a TokenomicsModuleKeeperOpt factory and passing it above, do you think it would get decent reuse?
Perhaps something like WithMaxProofRequirementThreshold().
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // Update the application's on-chain stake | ||
| newAppStake, err := application.Stake.SafeSub(newMintCoin) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm curious to understand if/how this interacts with the application min. stake and/or maxClaimableAmount. 🤔
TL;DR, it seems to me like min. stake SHOULD be collateral for app overservicing AND GMRR. Is this that unnecessary? Do we need to update MaxClaimableAmount?
MaxClaimableAmount prevents actualSettlementCoin from exceeding application stake - min. stake (once we add the unsettled sessions coefficient 😅) but it seems like with GMRR we would also need to also account for the potential magnitude of actualSettlementCoin + newMintCoin. Wouldn't min. stake actually need to cover actualSettlementCoin + newMintCoin for each claim in each session between the current and currently settling sessions?
Since newMintCoin is a function of actualSettlementCoin, it seems like we should be able to consider it in the same scope as maxClaimableAmount if that's the way to go here.
Summary
This PR adds
Issue
Type of change
Select one or more from the following:
Testing
make go_develop_and_testmake test_e2edevnet-test-e2elabel to the PR.Sanity Checklist