SIMD-0096: Reward full priority fee to validators

[tao-stones]

Reward 100% of priority fee to validator.

[diman-io]

Otherwise, a bribe program is just a matter of time

[mschneider]

lgtm! only drawback is not critical, we can monitor for metric inflation off-chain in lite-rpc etc. if it's a real concern

[lheeger-jump]

Approved

[lheeger-jump]

The primary drawback mentioned is not actually an issue, because the leader will still lose the base fee and they get to decide on inclusion of transactions anyways.

[eugene-chen]

this is already true in the current regime; the leader doesn't need to send any txs, they just reject all txs that don't have a prio fee large enough.

[tao-stones]

indeed

[aeyakovenko]

Scheduler should prioritize based on

• priority + base/2*CUs

@taozhu-chicago

That's the simple greedy choice for the validator

[buffalu]

i think this is a step in the right direction. however, i think it'd be good to also consider adding something similar to commission rate to priority fees and get those shared with stakers through auto-restaked SOL in stake accounts.

[CantelopePeel]

i think this is a step in the right direction. however, i think it'd be good to also consider adding something similar to commission rate to priority fees and get those shared with stakers through auto-restaked SOL in stake accounts.

please address this in a separate SIMD. i am happy with such a thing but its not a concern of this proposal.

[buffalu]

i think this is a step in the right direction. however, i think it'd be good to also consider adding something similar to commission rate to priority fees and get those shared with stakers through auto-restaked SOL in stake accounts.

please address this in a separate SIMD. i am happy with such a thing but its not a concern of this proposal.

that's fine with me, i will make another SIMD

[lheeger-jump]

Unless there are objections from core contributors, I will merge this SIMD on 08/01/2024.

[ripatel-fd]

I previously approved because I agree with the technical premise of this proposal. While proof reading, I noticed a few more things.

[lheeger-jump]

Lets merge this today please

[ripatel-fd]

@t-nelson Any objections to merging this?

[lheeger-jump]

LGTM, Merging

[slugmann321]

Shouldn't a big economic change like this require some discussion from the community?
The economics for validators will be hugely affected. Positively, but arguably at the expense of stakers/holders who will see increased supply issuance. Doesn't seem like a purely technical change to make. Where did this originate from?
Need to raise awareness of the change and arguably have some voting take place, IMO

[ripatel-fd]

Shouldn't a big economic change like this require some discussion from the community? The economics for validators will be hugely affected. Positively, but arguably at the expense of stakers/holders who will see increased supply issuance. Doesn't seem like a purely technical change to make. Where did this originate from? Need to raise awareness of the change and arguably have some voting take place, IMO

@slugmann321 That is the entire point of the proposal process. This document is now a finalized draft where it can be discussed by the community. See the status: Draft tag at the beginning of the file.

[jacobcreech]

@slugmann321 , as @ripatel-fd pointed out, we're now merged as a finalized draft. Moving from there to implemented can take multiple steps. Imo we do need guidance on when to take a feature gate through governance to get to implemented state.

[Ethan-000]

hi. wonder where can i see more discussion of this

[0xSol]

hi. wonder where can i see more discussion of this

Discord channel