Delegators who received rewards do not presented in cycle csv report, as a result total rewards as of cycle report do not match the explorer value

[oooleksandr]

Hi everyone! We are experiencing a few problems with TRD:

• we have noticed based on TRD cycle csv reports and explorer’s data, we have different rewards amount for each cycle
• we have also noticed that we have a bunch of delegators who is not presented in TRD cycle report but who have active delegation and also have the reward received in this cycle.

I am attaching the comparison for a few cycles and also the examples of delegators with references Tezos Rewards comparison .xlsx Accounts Examples - cycle 505.pdf

Delegators examples:

• tz1SHuj7jTvBSwnGeDVBZAxa7PuPBwZNvbZ6
• KT1U6WZmEpPrET7HcgmZX2c2L3LYqZDarPmm
• tz1So7udy2xhCWpsxa8GLbgjKAV5LERo7q4H

[oooleksandr]

Let me know if you need any additional details

[jdsika]

Did you compare the calculation report with the payment report?

[oooleksandr]

I see those Delegators in calculation report, but all of them have "Not in payment report." note in "desc" column. Could you please explain what does this mean?

Not sure what do OWNERS_PARENT and FOUNDERS_PARENT addresses mean, but if I remove Baker address and FOUNDERS_PARENT address from report, and calculation the total rewards amount, I see that total is exactly the same as in the explorer. Could you please also explain these two?

[jdsika]

Hi,

1. The explanations for the configuration items can be found here - please let me know if that is understandable or if we have to make some changes.
2. What you have discovered in general is most likely related to #576 . The caclulations report is displaying what amounts are exactly owed to what address and the configuration can then e.g. through redirecting payments etc lead to merged payments so create 1 out of originally 2 payments. IMO this should be properly displayed in the report and as you see with the note I have added to the cacluation report I have already started debugging it. The good thing is that the calculation does most likely work and is rather a "reporting issue".

Please investigate if the addresses that are missing are part of the configuration somehow. Is there a redirect e.g. OR if there is a LOG in the TRD output that states why that address was not payed (but I assume then it would have that reason stated in the payments report as well). So most likely it is part of the configuration..

[oooleksandr]

Hi! Thanks for sharing the documentation, everything looks clear now.

Those accounts, which I have shared, are the part of rules_map configuration, so this really might be the issue. If we are talking about OWNERS_PARENT and FOUNDERS_PARENT, should they be presented in payment report if we are assuming that everything works correctly?