Skip to content

[Closed in favour of !2639] Draft: NodeOperatorRewards

[Closed in favour of !2639 (merged)]

[Aimed for V103.]

An alternative approach to !2639 (merged), noting the greater number of places that need to be altered.

**Draft:**

  1. The question remains of how slashing should be handled (in terms of decrementing NodeOperatorRewards or not, and how if so).
  2. I'm currently contemplating how NewBondProviders sets NodeOperatorFee to cosmos.ZeroUint(),
    and how/whether doing so for NodeOperatorRewards would cause consensus failure,
    and how trying a SafeSub with an unset NodeOperatorRewards causes a Panic: runtime error: invalid memory address or nil pointer dereference error.
Edited by Multipartite

Merge request reports

Loading