Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

spec: fee distribution #967

Closed
ebuchman opened this issue May 8, 2018 · 6 comments · Fixed by #1702
Closed

spec: fee distribution #967

ebuchman opened this issue May 8, 2018 · 6 comments · Fixed by #1702
Assignees
Labels
spec T:Docs Changes and features related to documentation.

Comments

@ebuchman
Copy link
Member

ebuchman commented May 8, 2018

This was part of the old staking spec in https://github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/blob/develop/docs/spec/staking/old/spec.md

We should have a high level spec module called fees that details how this is done (copy over and update the old spec for this). Note it seems like it shouldn't be part of staking. Fees are distributed according to staking information, but so is governance power, etc. Might help to keep them separate

@ebuchman ebuchman added T:Docs Changes and features related to documentation. spec prelaunch labels May 8, 2018
@cwgoes
Copy link
Contributor

cwgoes commented May 30, 2018

In progress in #1048 I think.

@robert-zaremba
Copy link
Collaborator

Where is this documented?

@sunnya97
Copy link
Member

sunnya97 commented Jan 14, 2021

@robert-zaremba Is this what you're looking for?

https://github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/blob/master/docs/spec/_proposals/f1-fee-distribution/f1_fee_distr.pdf

Also, @cwgoes @ValarDragon is that the most up to date version of that document?

@ValarDragon
Copy link
Contributor

uhh, @cwgoes is there any reason to use the draft we submitted to tokenomics? I don't think so, but if so then we could update this

@ValarDragon
Copy link
Contributor

Also this issue in particular was about a much older spec. (Lamborghini IIRC?)

@robert-zaremba
Copy link
Collaborator

@sunnya97 - thanks, I found that. I was more thinking if we have any spec that is implemented, or any issue which clarify what should be implemented.
I've linked that document in the docs.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
spec T:Docs Changes and features related to documentation.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

6 participants