Pools: Make PermissionlessWithdraw the default claim permission
#3438
Conversation
rossbulat
added
I5-enhancement
rossbulat
changed the title
PermissionlessWithdraw the default claim permissionPermissionlessWithdraw the default claim permission
rossbulat
requested review from
Ank4n and
gpestana
and removed request for
Ank4n
| impl Default for ClaimPermission { | ||
| fn default() -> Self { | ||
| Self::PermissionlessWithdraw | ||
| } | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Since it is not an obvious default, my opinion would be to remove the default impl and explicitly use the variant where needed.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not sure I understand the ambiguity - the code is explicitly stating this is the default value so I think it looks quite obvious to the keen pallet observer. I think coming from nominators also it is intuitively the same behaviour, e.g. anyone can trigger a validator payout in the same manner as anyone can claim an unclaimed reward in this case.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
IMO obvious defaults are like false, zero but anything else should ideally not have defaults. Since its a value query it will default to this value if the key is missing and I generally think its better to be explicit as much as we can.
Though its just my opinion and if you disagree and no one else objects, I am fine with this.
|
Changing the default makes sense to me, but I am not completely sure if the removal of I think it's discussed a bit in the linked issue around potential ambiguity but shouldn't we try to clarify that, instead of removing it altogether? |
The problem is that there is no real way to clarify what pool members actually want to do - the only way is to change to PermissionlessWithdraw or PermissionlessCompound, which then defeats the purpose of PermissionlessAll. The uptake of 1.6% of pool members is worth stressing again - we don't want to consume pallet logic and storage with unused features. I think with the default switch PermissionlessAll is further rendered obsolete - why would it be chosen if members are already receiving rewards as free balance. |
Thanks @kianenigma, It looks like we are good to go now. I'm in agreement that |
…om/paritytech/polkadot-sdk into rb-claim-permission-default-change
) Related Issue #3398 This PR makes permissionless withdrawing the default option, giving any network participant access to claim pool rewards on member's behalf. Of course, members can still opt out of this by setting a `Permissioned` claim permission. Permissionless claiming has been a part of the nomination pool pallet for around 9 months now, with very limited uptake (~4% of total pool members). 1.6% of pool members are using `PermissionlessAll`, strongly suggesting it is not wanted - it is too ambiguous and doesn't provide guidance to claimers. Stakers expect rewards to be claimed on their behalf by default - I have expanded upon this in detail within the [accompanying issue's discussion](#3398). Other protocols have this behaviour, whereby staking rewards are received without the staker having to take any action. From this perspective, permissionless claiming is not intuitive for pool members. As evidence of this, over 150,000 DOT is currently unclaimed on Polkadot, and is growing at a non-linear rate.
) Related Issue #3398 This PR makes permissionless withdrawing the default option, giving any network participant access to claim pool rewards on member's behalf. Of course, members can still opt out of this by setting a `Permissioned` claim permission. Permissionless claiming has been a part of the nomination pool pallet for around 9 months now, with very limited uptake (~4% of total pool members). 1.6% of pool members are using `PermissionlessAll`, strongly suggesting it is not wanted - it is too ambiguous and doesn't provide guidance to claimers. Stakers expect rewards to be claimed on their behalf by default - I have expanded upon this in detail within the [accompanying issue's discussion](#3398). Other protocols have this behaviour, whereby staking rewards are received without the staker having to take any action. From this perspective, permissionless claiming is not intuitive for pool members. As evidence of this, over 150,000 DOT is currently unclaimed on Polkadot, and is growing at a non-linear rate.
…ritytech#3438) Related Issue paritytech#3398 This PR makes permissionless withdrawing the default option, giving any network participant access to claim pool rewards on member's behalf. Of course, members can still opt out of this by setting a `Permissioned` claim permission. Permissionless claiming has been a part of the nomination pool pallet for around 9 months now, with very limited uptake (~4% of total pool members). 1.6% of pool members are using `PermissionlessAll`, strongly suggesting it is not wanted - it is too ambiguous and doesn't provide guidance to claimers. Stakers expect rewards to be claimed on their behalf by default - I have expanded upon this in detail within the [accompanying issue's discussion](paritytech#3398). Other protocols have this behaviour, whereby staking rewards are received without the staker having to take any action. From this perspective, permissionless claiming is not intuitive for pool members. As evidence of this, over 150,000 DOT is currently unclaimed on Polkadot, and is growing at a non-linear rate.
Related Issue #3398
This PR makes permissionless withdrawing the default option, giving any network participant access to claim pool rewards on member's behalf. Of course, members can still opt out of this by setting a
Permissionedclaim permission.Permissionless claiming has been a part of the nomination pool pallet for around 9 months now, with very limited uptake (~4% of total pool members). 1.6% of pool members are using
PermissionlessAll, strongly suggesting it is not wanted - it is too ambiguous and doesn't provide guidance to claimers.Stakers expect rewards to be claimed on their behalf by default - I have expanded upon this in detail within the accompanying issue's discussion. Other protocols have this behaviour, whereby staking rewards are received without the staker having to take any action. From this perspective, permissionless claiming is not intuitive for pool members. As evidence of this, over 150,000 DOT is currently unclaimed on Polkadot, and is growing at a non-linear rate.