paritytech
permissionless `bond_extra` in nomination pools
Resolves #11638
polkadot address: 12zsKEDVcHpKEWb99iFt3xrTCQQXZMu477nJQsTBBrof5k2h
Ideally this action should not be at any cost to pool operators?
Asked this because I had no idea incentives were not offered to pool operators.
We discussed this internally and our interim opinion is to not add a new role for this, and not attach it to root either.
If a user allows this, ANYONE should be able to claim their rewards. WDYT @Doordashcon?
(we will soon post this in the polkadot forum as well to get more feedback from the existing pool operators.)
(we will soon post this in the polkadot forum as well to get more feedback from the existing pool operators.)
Sounds good @kianenigma i'll wait till it's up on the forum before implementing changes.
This pull request has been mentioned on Polkadot Forum. There might be relevant details there:
https://forum.polkadot.network/t/roles-in-nomination-pools/1169/5
@Doordashcon what's the status? do you feel like pushing this to the finish line? I am also happy to take over the branch if you are busy (or preparing for the academy ;)).
I mainly want to see the code-reuse fixed, and next to that a much higher quality of docs. Otherwise the core logic is already there.
@kianenigma I would be glad to have you take over the branch, looking forward to the academy!
This pull request has been mentioned on Polkadot Forum. There might be relevant details there:
https://forum.polkadot.network/t/the-future-of-polkadot-staking/1848/1
Working on the changes this week!! @kianenigma, sorry for the late response
Hello @kianenigma please take a look, had some misconceptions about transfers which lead to my previous approach somewhat :)
@Doordashcon I pushed some changes in https://github.com/paritytech/substrate/pull/12608/commits/f6254faffc99ff599da7773cbd9db067761df68e, I left one TODO in the tests for you because I think the previous behavior was wrong. Please double check and amend accordingly?
namely. even if you call bond_extr_other(kian, kian) you should still be able to bond extra some free balance.
@kianenigma updated the test
also noticed a tip of 0 DOTs was given but it says large?
@kianenigma updated the test
also noticed a tip of 0 DOTs was given but it says large?
should be resolved
Ideally this action should not be at any cost to pool operators?
Asked this because I had no idea incentives were not offered to pool operators.
https://github.com/paritytech/substrate/pull/13128/ will resolve this, e.g. operators can factor auto claiming costs into their commission.
We're reviewing this now & aiming to merge tomorrow, so I will go ahead and commit the renaming suggestions.
I've noticed that benchmarks to bond_extra_other do not account for signer and who being different account so an extra read operation is being missed.
Edit: benchmarks fixed.
@rossbulat https://gitlab.parity.io/parity/mirrors/substrate/-/jobs/2423241 was started for your command "$PIPELINE_SCRIPTS_DIR/commands/fmt/fmt.sh". Check out https://gitlab.parity.io/parity/mirrors/substrate/-/pipelines?page=1&scope=all&username=group_605_bot to know what else is being executed currently.
Comment bot cancel 16-aecb558a-8df6-43ca-bd19-a38e048ce880 to cancel this command or bot cancel to cancel all commands in this pull request.
![command-bot[bot] avatar](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/117604?v=4 "Published by a pub.dev verified publisher"){kind=small}
@rossbulat Command "$PIPELINE_SCRIPTS_DIR/commands/fmt/fmt.sh" has finished. Result: https://gitlab.parity.io/parity/mirrors/substrate/-/jobs/2423241 has finished. If any artifacts were generated, you can download them from https://gitlab.parity.io/parity/mirrors/substrate/-/jobs/2423241/artifacts/download.
![paritytech-processbot[bot] avatar](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/144942?v=4 "Published by a pub.dev verified publisher"){kind=small}