Open Leemo94 opened 12 months ago
👍 🚀 💯
Keep in mind with # 4, I'm not sure costs would decrease much because all of the logic has to be done for every track anyway, with exception of a couple things that don't change like the nonsense check, the lock, and the balance check. I'd definitely advocate for it from a user experience perspective though.
And # 1 is definitely needed as well. It definitely alleviates worries delegators have about disagreeing with a specific vote even though they agree with a delegate generally.
Keep in mind with # 4, I'm not sure costs would decrease much because all of the logic has to be done for every track anyway, with exception of a couple things that don't change like the nonsense check, the lock, and the balance check. I'd definitely advocate for it from a user experience perspective though.
And # 1 is definitely needed as well. It definitely alleviates worries delegators have about disagreeing with a specific vote even though they agree with a delegate generally.
indeed, the decrease in costs may not be huge, but there should be some number of redundant storage item reads / writes which can be reduced by up to 15x, since we can assume all of those redundant reads will be in the overlay.
It seems okay to at least make a more accurate estimate as to the weight / fee costs improvements before moving forward with implementing 4.
Otherwise, perhaps the real solution here would be to have more advance benchmarking / weight systems which can detect redundant storage reads by default and refund weights.
can you make this .md
file, otherwise Github can't preview it and I don't want to read raw markdown file.
I'll underline @xlc 's remarks. As it stands, this is just a wishlist. For it to be taken seriously it must include implementation specifics, including how to achieve bounded-complexity compute and state-changes on all operations.
This RFC proposes changes to OpenGov delegations.