-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 315
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
distributions: LQT pool budget #5026
Conversation
let lqt_block_reward_rate = self | ||
.get_distributions_params() | ||
.await? | ||
.liquidity_tournament_incentive_per_block as u64; |
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.
why is this chain param defined as u64 again?
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 don't know if there's a principled reason for it to be a u64
rather than Amount
, but this seems fine.
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.
LGTM, this looks right to me
## Describe your changes Implements the LQT rewards comprising the total reward pool size for an epoch. ## Issue ticket number and link references #5025 ## Checklist before requesting a review - [x] I have added guiding text to explain how a reviewer should test these changes. - [x] If this code contains consensus-breaking changes, I have added the "consensus-breaking" label. Otherwise, I declare my belief that there are not consensus-breaking changes, for the following reason: > adds new logic for computing LQT issuance
## Describe your changes Implements the LQT rewards comprising the total reward pool size for an epoch. ## Issue ticket number and link references #5025 ## Checklist before requesting a review - [x] I have added guiding text to explain how a reviewer should test these changes. - [x] If this code contains consensus-breaking changes, I have added the "consensus-breaking" label. Otherwise, I declare my belief that there are not consensus-breaking changes, for the following reason: > adds new logic for computing LQT issuance
## Describe your changes Implements the LQT rewards comprising the total reward pool size for an epoch. ## Issue ticket number and link references #5025 ## Checklist before requesting a review - [x] I have added guiding text to explain how a reviewer should test these changes. - [x] If this code contains consensus-breaking changes, I have added the "consensus-breaking" label. Otherwise, I declare my belief that there are not consensus-breaking changes, for the following reason: > adds new logic for computing LQT issuance
## Describe your changes Implements the LQT rewards comprising the total reward pool size for an epoch. ## Issue ticket number and link references #5025 ## Checklist before requesting a review - [x] I have added guiding text to explain how a reviewer should test these changes. - [x] If this code contains consensus-breaking changes, I have added the "consensus-breaking" label. Otherwise, I declare my belief that there are not consensus-breaking changes, for the following reason: > adds new logic for computing LQT issuance
Describe your changes
Implements the LQT reward distribution for the total reward pool size for an epoch.
Issue ticket number and link
references #5025
Checklist before requesting a review
I have added guiding text to explain how a reviewer should test these changes.
If this code contains consensus-breaking changes, I have added the "consensus-breaking" label. Otherwise, I declare my belief that there are not consensus-breaking changes, for the following reason: