Adapt fees to declared effective balance #52
Conversation
GalRogozinski
changed the title
GalRogozinski
requested review from
MatheusFranco99,
alan-ssvlabs,
y0sher,
moshe-blox and
MatusKysel
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| ```solidity | ||
| // Function to get the maximum ETH balance deviation |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
does it really need to be stored on chain? or can nodes simply parse it from events?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
events sounds good to me
@mtabasco wants to comment?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, if there is no major UX issue removing getAllowedBalanceDeviation(), the ETH balance deviation can be emitted.
| |-------|----------------|--------------------------------------|---------|--------------------| | ||
| | Gal Rogozinski & Marco Tabasco | Adapt fees to declared effective balance | Contracts & Core | open-for-discussions |18.09.2024 | | ||
|
|
||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
what bothers me with this approach is that a user having thousands of validators will need to update each one independently ..
Post pectra all validators start to compound above 32 automatically? if so it will be a nightmare from UX POV
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Note that the contract owner (DAO) allows a deviation in percentage. So that the maxEffectiveBalanceUpdate won't have to be too frequent.
There is already a similar UX issue with SSV top ups. The UI can combine them into one UX issue.
It can demand an amount of SSV that should be enough until the user will have to do the next balance update.
If we don't go with this solution we need to think about something smarter like estimating the effective balance compounding (I have a draft for it) or using oracles.
In a conversation with @liorrutenberg we decided we should push the simplest solution.
We can try to dive into the complicated ones.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could be also that updating clusters instead of validators will simplify things
|
Take aways from meeting:
|
|
|
||
| ## Motivation | ||
|
|
||
| Operators on SSV Network charge validators a fee based on an expected workload. The expected workload is proportional to the the effective balance a validator has. Currently the effective balance is assumed to be a constant 32 ETH by the contract. With the introduction of [EIP-7251](https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-7251) the effective balance of a validator could be as high as 2048 ETH. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The workload won't increase linearly in proportion to eff balance... so maybe this should be rephrased
Description
Have users update their effective balance on the contract so correct fees can be calculated after EIP-7251 is deployed on Ethereum.