feat: operator set centric rewards #998
Conversation
0xClandestine
changed the title
| OperatorSet calldata operatorSet, | ||
| uint16 split | ||
| ) external onlyWhenNotPaused(PAUSED_OPERATOR_SET_OPERATOR_SPLIT) checkCanCall(operator) { | ||
| require(allocationManager.isOperatorSet(operatorSet), InvalidOperatorSet()); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So something to think about here. Does it make sense to check if an operatorSet is valid here. Can it change for future durations or even retroactive durations? What if an operator wants to change their split for some existing reward that has a future payment but the operator set is not longer valid.
cc: @ypatil12
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There isn't a way to delete operatorSets & the opSet reward is (currently) retroactive, so this would come down to setting a split before the opSet exists. If we were to add the prospective opSet rewards then I think this would make sense to revisit
|
|
||
| emit OperatorPISplitBipsSet(msg.sender, operator, activatedAt, oldSplit, split); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| /// @inheritdoc IRewardsCoordinator | ||
| function setOperatorDirectedOperatorSetSplit( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
to clarify, in the sidecar is the level of prescedence:
- operatorSet split
if not set, then - avs split
if not set, then - default
There was a problem hiding this comment.
^ this is the case of calculating the split for an operator receiving a directed submission
0xClandestine
force-pushed
the
feat/operator-centric-rewards
branch
2 times, most recently
from
7cfa2d2 to
c24ffde
Compare
|
need to update gap |
| OperatorSet calldata operatorSet, | ||
| uint16 split | ||
| ) external onlyWhenNotPaused(PAUSED_OPERATOR_SET_OPERATOR_SPLIT) checkCanCall(operator) { | ||
| require(allocationManager.isOperatorSet(operatorSet), InvalidOperatorSet()); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There isn't a way to delete operatorSets & the opSet reward is (currently) retroactive, so this would come down to setting a split before the opSet exists. If we were to add the prospective opSet rewards then I think this would make sense to revisit
0xClandestine
force-pushed
the
feat/operator-centric-rewards
branch
from
d7be43c to
951d422
Compare
0xClandestine
force-pushed
the
feat/operator-centric-rewards
branch
3 times, most recently
from
722b3d8 to
97ff835
Compare
feat: operator centric rewards feat: add new interfaces feat(wip): implement `createOperatorSetPerformanceRewardsSubmission` chore: forge fmt fix: compile feat(wip): implement `setOperatorSetOperatorSplit` fix: review changes fix: add missing `onlyWhenPaused` + `checkCanCall` feat(wip): add missing `getOperatorSetPerformanceSplit` + rename internals test(wip): `setOperatorSetPerformanceSplit` test(wip): `createOperatorSetPerformanceRewardsSubmission` - some failing chore: forge fmt refactor: renaming chore: storage report refactor: review changes refactor: review changes fix: gap refactor: review changes
0xClandestine
force-pushed
the
feat/operator-centric-rewards
branch
from
97ff835 to
4d83695
Compare
Slashing Rewards Updates - notion