distributions: LQT pool budget #5026
Merged
+78
−12
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
TalDerei
added
the
consensus-breaking
TalDerei
commented
Jan 30, 2025
| let lqt_block_reward_rate = self | ||
| .get_distributions_params() | ||
| .await? | ||
| .liquidity_tournament_incentive_per_block as u64; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
why is this chain param defined as u64 again?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't know if there's a principled reason for it to be a u64 rather than Amount, but this seems fine.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Describe your changes
Implements the LQT reward distribution for the total reward pool size for an epoch.
Issue ticket number and link
references #5025
Checklist before requesting a review
I have added guiding text to explain how a reviewer should test these changes.
If this code contains consensus-breaking changes, I have added the "consensus-breaking" label. Otherwise, I declare my belief that there are not consensus-breaking changes, for the following reason: