Skip to content

Conversation

@txhsl
Copy link
Contributor

@txhsl txhsl commented Jul 19, 2024

Relate #247, #236 and #271.

Increase the exit fee rate from 5% to 50%, but decrease the register fee from 20000 GAS to 2000 GAS, which is suggested by @steven1227 for mainnet configuration.

NOTE: Genesis allocation is not updated here.

Copy link
Member

@AnnaShaleva AnnaShaleva left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think 50% is really a lot, this logic seems to be imbalanced a bit with this value. Do you have a reason of why the charge is so large?

@AnnaShaleva AnnaShaleva added the config Issues related to the node configuration label Jul 19, 2024
@AnnaShaleva AnnaShaleva added this to the v0.2.1 milestone Jul 19, 2024
@txhsl txhsl force-pushed the governance-exit-fee branch from b6873ef to 2844e04 Compare July 22, 2024 03:04
@txhsl
Copy link
Contributor Author

txhsl commented Jul 22, 2024

I think 50% is really a lot, this logic seems to be imbalanced a bit with this value. Do you have a reason of why the charge is so large?

Well, the code expression of 50% seems quite rude, so I changed it a bit. Let me describe the background first.

  1. N3 charges 1000 GAS for registration, and it will not be refunded;
  2. The first Neo X solution refunds all register fee back;
  3. I'm not expected to change the registration logic after audit;
  4. We need an exit fee there to prevent DoS attack about candidate limit, and we expect it to be the same amount of N3;
  5. The 20000 GAS deposit is too much (comparing with 32 ETH on Ethereum), and market requires us to lower it;

How about now? I declare the exit fee as a fixed value.

Copy link
Contributor

@roman-khimov roman-khimov left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is it that much different from N3 "pay 1000 GAS and never worry again)" model then?

Copy link
Member

@AnnaShaleva AnnaShaleva left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

To be honest, the previous rate-based way was more preferable to me because fee is always proportional to the deposit which seems to be honest and protective from DoS for every deposit value. The question from my side was why 50%. But from your answer I see that it's a necessity, thus may be it's OK to keep 50%.

@txhsl txhsl force-pushed the governance-exit-fee branch from 3163f36 to 076447d Compare July 23, 2024 02:26
@txhsl
Copy link
Contributor Author

txhsl commented Jul 23, 2024

Is it that much different from N3 "pay 1000 GAS and never worry again)" model then?

To have the same thing as N3 “pay 1000 GAS and never worry again” model, I will have to change the register and exit logic here. But I don't expect that after audit, especially closely before mainnet.

@txhsl txhsl merged commit 922a976 into bane-main Jul 23, 2024
@txhsl txhsl deleted the governance-exit-fee branch July 23, 2024 02:31
AnnaShaleva added a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 23, 2024
Make it follow the contract logic adjusted in #275.

Signed-off-by: Anna Shaleva <[email protected]>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

config Issues related to the node configuration

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants