Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[FR] Per validator fee recipient #3291

Open
kanewallmann opened this issue Jan 17, 2022 · 3 comments
Open

[FR] Per validator fee recipient #3291

kanewallmann opened this issue Jan 17, 2022 · 3 comments

Comments

@kanewallmann
Copy link

It is highly desirable for Rocket Pool (and likely other staking providers) that the feeRecipient on execution payloads be configurable on a per validator account basis.

In the case of Rocket Pool, users may be running both solo validators where they are entitled to the full reward and Rocket Pool validators where only a portion of the rewards belongs to them. Not having this feature would exclude Nimbus as a possible client for users running this setup.

Depending on our chosen implementation of priority fee processing, we may even require this feature for all Rocket Pool node operators as we may need to account for priority fees on an individual validator basis. In this situation, this feature would be critical for our interoperability with Nimbus.

A simple mapping of validator indices to fee recipients would be sufficient for our use case.

I can imagine that this flexibility would be desirable in other advanced use cases as well.

@tersec
Copy link
Contributor

tersec commented Feb 15, 2022

For reference, how Teku does this: Consensys/teku#4894

@zah
Copy link
Contributor

zah commented Jun 9, 2022

The support for specifying per-validator fee recipient was implemented in #3652

The issue will be closed after we document the configuration steps in the Nimbus guide (#3723). In the first iteration, the user will have to manually create configuration files, while in the future we will also support a command-line interface for this (#3723 and #3725)

@arnetheduck
Copy link
Member

arnetheduck commented Jun 9, 2022

We should also support the more simple and stateless --suggested-fee-recipient option for this - ie it's messy to have to create a file or use the keymanager api for simple use cases

Edit: Oops, we already do :)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants