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

Remove slow wallet check when completing a community transfer #1211

Open
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: v6
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

0xzoz
Copy link
Collaborator

@0xzoz 0xzoz commented Nov 24, 2022

Motivation

At the moment, community wallets can send GAS only to slow wallets. It doesn’t make sense.
Slow wallets were made to prevent validators and early contributors that were granted large amounts of GAS, from dumping on the market and move the price too much.

People that are receiving bounties, “employees“, etc. all of those, should have no limitations to spend their “well earned“ GAS.

This PR removes the checks on the payee acc being a slow wallet when making community transfers.

Test Plan

Refer to comment below

Related PRs

N/A

@0xzoz 0xzoz added this to the v6 milestone Nov 24, 2022
@0xzoz 0xzoz self-assigned this Nov 24, 2022
@0xzoz
Copy link
Collaborator Author

0xzoz commented Nov 24, 2022

@simsekgokhan what is the best way to test these changes?

@simsekgokhan
Copy link
Contributor

simsekgokhan commented Nov 28, 2022

@simsekgokhan what is the best way to test these changes?

This is how you test it which should fail after your changes.

NODE_ENV="test" cargo test -p diem-framework --test ol_transactional_tests transfer_community_wallet_script.

Copy link
Contributor

@simsekgokhan simsekgokhan left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM. Thank you!
You need to update the test to make it pass. Lines 10, 15, 18 in your version or better, just see/follow the error codes of failed test.

@0xzoz
Copy link
Collaborator Author

0xzoz commented Dec 2, 2022

You need to update the test to make it pass. Lines 10, 15, 18 in your version or better, just see/follow the error codes of failed test.

Thanks for the insight into how to test. The changes have been made and it is now passing.

I would like to hear @0o-de-lally's opinion on the implications of these changes from an economical perspective. I see the reasoning behind this being beneficial to recipients but fear I may be missing context to the other side of the argument.

@0o-de-lally
Copy link
Collaborator

0o-de-lally commented Jan 27, 2023

So I would strongly advise against this. This breaks a lot of the game theory around community wallets, where it makes it trivial to steal from the "match burn" donation game. Also it will completely change the expectations around vesting and circulation, which leads to other second order consideration.

I think that the daily drip can change once there's a governance discussion about it. But I think that at the current 30K per month [edit], I don't really see a major problem.

That all said, in V6 the actual numbers may need to change to achieve the original objective: vesting for all, especially whales, but not more that 10 years for the largest account. I believe this written up in one of the canonical docs.

@0xzoz
Copy link
Collaborator Author

0xzoz commented Feb 2, 2023

Thanks for the context @0o-de-lally. I had a feeling there would be missing information and/or indirectly affected aspects of the design but had a very naive understanding and wasn't sure what they were.

What is the 30K daily unlock you are referring to? The original documentation stated 10k per slow wallets address but the commented code had 1k, which is what is currently in place.

@0o-de-lally
Copy link
Collaborator

What is the 30K daily unlock you are referring to?
I meant monthly. Edited now.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants