Website: Intrinsic RevShare Token #284
Merged
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
add Rationale & Security Considerations
|
✅ All reviewers have approved. |
abcoathup
reviewed
Feb 29, 2024
abcoathup
reviewed
Feb 29, 2024
Co-authored-by: Andrew B Coathup <[email protected]>
eip-review-bot
changed the title
socathie
changed the title
eip-review-bot
changed the title
eip-review-bot
changed the title
|
The commit 72f4d1c (as a parent of 1274cfd) contains errors. |
eip-review-bot
changed the title
socathie
changed the title
This was referenced Mar 5, 2024
18 tasks
27 tasks
19 tasks
13 tasks
SamWilsn
reviewed
May 29, 2024
ERCS/erc-7641.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| ### `claimableRevenue` interface | ||
|
|
||
| We specify a `claimableRevenue` interface to calculate the amount of ETH claimable by a token holder at a certain snapshot. We will share the revenue between two consecutive snapshots. Specifically, assuming that the revenue between two snapshots is `R`, we will specify a revenue sharing ratio `p`, ranging from 0%-100%, and we will share the revenue of `pR` to different token holders according to the token ratio. Specifically, the amount of ETH claimable by a token holder with `amount` tokens at a certain snapshot is `pR * amount / totalAmount` , where `totalAmount` denotes the total amount of [ERC-7641](./eip-7641.md) token. Noted that the remaining revenue of `(1-p)R` will be retained in the revenue pool, and we can take out this part of revenue through burning. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This paragraph sounds like it's creating requirements on implementations? For example, "the amount of ETH claimable [...] is pR * amount / totalAmount" seems like an instruction to implementers.
If these are requirements, they'll need to be moved to the Specification section. The reasoning behind why that formula exists should remain in the Rationale section.
The idea is that the Specification section, taken alone, should be enough for someone to write a compliant implementation of this proposal. The other sections (Rationale included) are here for context and history purposes.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We have changed the wording to reflect that it is an example. Please review!
eip-review-bot
changed the title
Co-authored-by: Sam Wilson <[email protected]>
socathie
changed the title
eip-review-bot
changed the title
socathie
changed the title
eip-review-bot
changed the title
socathie
changed the title
SamWilsn
approved these changes
May 30, 2024
eip-review-bot
changed the title
eip-review-bot
approved these changes
May 30, 2024
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.
When opening a pull request to submit a new EIP, please use the suggested template: https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/blob/master/eip-template.md
We have a GitHub bot that automatically merges some PRs. It will merge yours immediately if certain criteria are met: