PIP-31: Unleashing the potential of POKT

[RawthiL (Ramiro | POKTscan)]

Thanks for the response, I agree that using the auth/FeeMultipliers for two purposes would be confusing. Thanks for clarifying.

Just to confirm, is this correct?

@RawthiL

You propose to divide rewards to (correct me if wrong):

• DAO : As usual.
• BlockProposer: As usual.
• Servicer Operator: Only claim/proof fees. This exists because the fee is not proportional to the claimed ammount, so the operator must always be refunded at least this amount.
• Delegators: A list of addresses with percentages of the remaining rewards, I suppose that the sum of percentages is <= 100%
• Output Address : This will receive the rest, its a way of saying “the owner of the node takes all that is not claimed for”.

I’m specially curious about the delegators, any address can be assigned as a delegator?

---

@bulutcambazi

Please don’t consider the motivation of RTTM change just to be fairer to archival / trace nodes. The real motivation is enabling LLM and other generative AI scenarios. So, a new chain should not get allow-listed at the cost of other chains. This is not a zero sum game, or a limited pie to be shared. We are hoping to expand the pie.

I think that this is the real deal, could you share if you have some development on this subject?
While IA-related RPCs are not much different than blockchain RPCs, there are many important details around them.

---

The Balance

@shane @Cryptocorn and everyone else feeding into the subject of balancing.
I don’t believe that it is important to discuss here. This patch introduces tools that are needed, but it does not introduce any parameter change. This means that before and after implementing this change the rewards per chain will remain exactly the same. We can then start discussions on a per-chain basis and vote on the changes, on other threads.

The balance that you want to achieve is not feasible by the PNF, it must be automated. Also, it should (and can) be agnostic of the number of chains per node. We have developed such a method, based on the entropy of the staked nodes by chain, you can read about it in this thread (V1 fairness). The method does exactly that, modifies the RTTMs based on the staked nodes per chain, I encourage you to discuss the automated balancing there.

I’m not trying to censor the discussion, but it is completely irrelevant to this patch IMO. We should keep this clean and discuss the functionalities that are being proposed, not the effects of using them in a way or an other.