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

[review] MIP-52: Aptos Gas Pool #52

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

l-monninger
Copy link
Contributor

Summary

MIP-52

@l-monninger l-monninger requested a review from apenzk as a code owner November 8, 2024 13:25
@apenzk apenzk changed the title [draft] MIP-52: Aptos Gas Pool [review] MIP-52: Aptos Gas Pool Nov 12, 2024
@@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
# MIP-52: Aptos Gas Pool
- **Description**: Introduces implementation specification for the Gas Pool in Aptos.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

why "in Aptos" ? do you mean "in Aptos-core"?


## Motivation

The introduction of a Gas Pool in Aptos will allow for the recirculation of gas used in the Aptos ecosystem. This ensures the supply can remain fixed and the gas can be re-used for purposes such as rewarding.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

do you mean "used in the Aptos-core system"?

also why ecosystem?

The burn replacement approach replaces the `coin::burn_from` call in `transaction_fee::burn_fee` with a `coin::transfer_from` call to the Gas Pool.

## Verification
**Outstanding**:
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

can this MIP be approved or should we await this outstanding points to be clarified @l-monninger ?

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants