Skip to content

front: add mev_tip_skim label + description#27

Open
simonmorley wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
mev-tip-skim
Open

front: add mev_tip_skim label + description#27
simonmorley wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
mev-tip-skim

Conversation

@simonmorley
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Summary

  • Adds mev_tip_skim to the EventType union and renders a delegator-facing label + Kobe-aware description on the public feed
  • Pairs with slasher-api PR #31 (catalog) and the worker detector already on main

Test plan

  • npm run build passes (zero TS errors)
  • Visual check on dev once API PR #31 lands and the first MEV event makes it through calibration → emission

Render the new Solana mev_tip_skim event type with a delegator-facing
label ("Withheld MEV tips from delegators. Skim detected.") and a
detailed description of the closed-epoch Kobe-vs-merkle shortfall
detection.

Pairs with slasher-api PR #31 and the worker-side detector that
shipped in PR #34.
Copy link
Copy Markdown

@gemini-code-assist gemini-code-assist Bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Code Review

This pull request introduces a new event type, mev_tip_skim, to track and describe instances where MEV tips distributed to Solana delegators fall short of expected values. The changes include updates to the EventType API type and the addition of corresponding labels and descriptions in the constants file. Feedback was provided to improve the clarity of the event description by replacing internal jargon with more descriptive language and correcting the capitalization of 'Merkle'.

Comment thread src/lib/constants.ts
vanilla_solana: 'Validator is running the stock Agave client rather than jito-solana, which means they are forfeiting MEV tip revenue that could otherwise flow to their delegators. For validators with meaningful stake this is a direct cost to delegators that does not show up in the advertised commission.',
jito_opted_out: 'Validator just switched from jito-solana to the stock Agave client, meaning MEV tip revenue that would have flowed to delegators is now being forfeited. A deliberate change, not a technical issue — worth understanding why.',
jito_opted_in: 'Validator resumed running jito-solana after a prior opt-out. MEV tip revenue flows to delegators again.',
mev_tip_skim: 'For a closed Solana epoch, the MEV tips actually distributed to this validator\'s delegators fell materially short of the expected staker share — computed as Jito MEV revenue minus the validator\'s stated commission. The Kobe data says one number; the on-chain merkle distribution says a smaller one. Both the percentage shortfall and absolute SOL gap exceeded conservative thresholds before this event was raised.',
Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

medium

The term Kobe appears to be internal jargon and might be confusing for public users. Consider using a more descriptive term like expected revenue data. Additionally, Merkle should be capitalized as it is a proper noun.

Suggested change
mev_tip_skim: 'For a closed Solana epoch, the MEV tips actually distributed to this validator\'s delegators fell materially short of the expected staker share — computed as Jito MEV revenue minus the validator\'s stated commission. The Kobe data says one number; the on-chain merkle distribution says a smaller one. Both the percentage shortfall and absolute SOL gap exceeded conservative thresholds before this event was raised.',
mev_tip_skim: 'For a closed Solana epoch, the MEV tips actually distributed to this validator\'s delegators fell materially short of the expected staker share — computed as Jito MEV revenue minus the validator\'s stated commission. The expected revenue data says one number; the on-chain Merkle distribution says a smaller one. Both the percentage shortfall and absolute SOL gap exceeded conservative thresholds before this event was raised.',

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.

1 participant