feat(governance): Relax 8 year gang requirements.#9966
feat(governance): Relax 8 year gang requirements.#9966daniel-wong-dfinity-org wants to merge 3 commits intomasterfrom
Conversation
![github-actions[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/15368?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
Sorry, something went wrong.
daniel-wong-dfinity-org
force-pushed
the
relax-8y-daniel-wong
branch
from
160e56f to
f506006
Compare
daniel-wong-dfinity-org
dismissed
github-actions[bot]’s stale review
- Done.
- No new data requirements.
- This IS a data migration.
- Requested.
daniel-wong-dfinity-org
force-pushed
the
relax-8y-daniel-wong
branch
from
b040710 to
b221b87
Compare
| ) { | ||
| for neuron_id in neuron_ids_with_sufficiently_large_dissolve_delay { | ||
| let neuron_id = NeuronId { id: neuron_id }; | ||
| self.with_main_part_mut(neuron_id, |abridged_neuron| { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is it guaranteed that the neuron id from the snapshot still exists or could it be split/merged/etc in the meantime?
|
|
||
| pub fn set_relaxed_eight_year_gang_bonus_base_e8s_or_panic( | ||
| &mut self, | ||
| pre_clamp_states: &HashMap<u64, NeuronDissolveStateSnapshot>, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Did clamping, i.e., snapshot creation, happen at the same time when the eight_year_gang_bonus_base_e8s was set?
| // This is to avoid newly staked ICP from receiving the eight year | ||
| // gang bonus. | ||
| if abridged_neuron.aging_since_timestamp_seconds | ||
| > RELAXED_EIGHT_YEAR_GANG_MAX_AGING_SINCE_TIMESTAMP_SECONDS |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't understand how this check should avoid that newly staked ICP receive the eight year gang bonus: IIUC if X new ICP are added to a neuron which already has Y ICP, the age will be reduced by the factor Y/(X+Y). However, if the previous age was large and/or X is small, the resulting new aging timestamp could still be before RELAXED_EIGHT_YEAR_GANG_MAX_AGING_SINCE_TIMESTAMP_SECONDS.
| // Skip neurons that are already in the eight year gang. | ||
| if d == MAX_DISSOLVE_DELAY_SECONDS_PRE_MISSION_70 { | ||
| return None; | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This
- could be problematic, as the neuron could have increased their dissolve delay between April 9th and April 20th, and I don't see a reason punishing them
- seems unnecessary, as we already guard against
eight_year_gang_bonus_base_e8slater
3 participants
In particular, >= 8 * 365 days dissolve delay + aging since < March 30 (midnight UTC) (and not already a member of the eight year gang).
This is because there were neurons with very very very nearly 8 year dissolve delay.