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

isthmus: operator fee #382

Open
wants to merge 60 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

yuwen01
Copy link
Contributor

@yuwen01 yuwen01 commented Sep 20, 2024

Overview

We propose adding additional fee scalars to the fee formula, which allow for more flexibility for chains that leverage alt-DA, ZK proving, or custom gas tokens.

This spec goes with this design doc.

@yuwen01 yuwen01 marked this pull request as ready for review September 20, 2024 06:01
Copy link
Member

@sebastianst sebastianst left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Also curious to hear from @tynes and @roberto-bayardo, who's implemented changes to the fee function in Fjord.

I propose to use a prefix for this feature that conveys more meaning, like OperatorFee or FixedFee.

specs/protocol/isthmus/configurability.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Comment on lines 17 to 18
calculation: the `ConfigurableFee`, which is parameterized by two scalars: the `configurableFeeScalar`
and the `configurableFeeConstant`.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I find the use of the prefix "configurable" a bit meaningless for this feature. Other fee parameters, like the (blob)BaseFeeScalars are also "configurable". Maybe we use a prefix that better describes the reason for their introduction, like

  • OperatorFee
  • operatorFeeScalar
  • operatorFeeConstant
    or something similar that attaches more meaning to them? fixedFee... could also work.

Blocks after the Isthmus activation block contain all pre-Isthmus values 1:1,
and also set the following new attributes:

- The `configurableFeeScalar` is set to `0`.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Don't we want to set it to 1? Otherwise there's no fees any more.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The configurableFeeScalar is only scaled by the gas used -- it doesn't scale any of the existing fees. The goal is to add a separate component to the fee calculation, like base fee and priority fee.


The configurable fee is set as follows:

`configurableFee = gas_used * configurableFeeScalar + configurableFeeConstant`
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

So we don't need any fractional scaling, like we introduced with Fjord for the model parameters? I mean something like

Suggested change
`configurableFee = gas_used * configurableFeeScalar + configurableFeeConstant`
`configurableFee = (gas_used * configurableFeeScalar + configurableFeeConstant) / 1e6`

to allow for a decimal precision of 6.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Good point -- it makes sense for users to be able to have fractional scalars. However, I don't know why a user would want to have a fractional constant. The only reason I can think would be to save bits -- see my other comment.

Comment on lines 30 to 31
| configurableFeeScalar | uint64 | 180-187 | |
| configurableFeeConstant | uint64 | 188-195 | |
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Do we really want or need 64 bits instead of 32 bits size for the new parameters? E.g. the (blob)baseFeeScalars also worked with 32 bits (and also a decimal scaling factor, see other comment).

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks for the feedback! I agree with your point about renaming to operatorFee and allowing for 6 decimal points of precision, but I was a little unsure about reducing the bit width of the operatorFeeConstant and operatorFeeScalar.

I think it should be fine to decrease the Scalar to 32 bits, but I'm concerned that 32 bits won't be enough to represent the constant factor. For example, in this transaction https://optimistic.etherscan.io/tx/0xa6dfc18c35bf39fa60823e9280bde18496e27e9016040f7ad9ded6797c374f05, the total transaction fee in wei requires 43 bits to represent.

If we scale the constant term by a fixed factor we could fit it in 32 bits. But I don't know how much control a user might want over this constant.


##### `setIsthmus`

This function is meant to be called once on the activation block of the isthmus network upgrade.
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

on second thought maybe this isn't necessary -- if we read the scalars from the l1block before isthmus is set, we'll just read from uninitialized storage, which defaults to 0. So the derived operator fee will just be 0.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This is useful for the GasOracle predeploy that attempts to do L2 fee estimation

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

You can see here how we have handled this in the past. I believe we will need to include a calculation of the operator fee in the GasPriceOracle now

@yuwen01 yuwen01 marked this pull request as ready for review October 3, 2024 18:42
- [`operatorFeeScalar`](#operatorfeescalar)
- [`operatorFeeConstant`](#operatorfeeconstant)
- [`setOperatorFeeScalars`](#setoperatorfeescalars)
- [`setOperatorFeeManager`](#setoperatorfeemanager)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Can we create a role in the SuperchainConfig called "operator fee manager" and source the value from there? https://github.com/ethereum-optimism/specs/blob/d6b979ab67bd98bc3a15bf4988df08a066788047/specs/protocol/isthmus/superchain-config.md

This will make standard definition more simple, use the same superchain config that op gov recognizes, chain can also use their own superchain config if they are their own L2

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Follow up: trying to align ongoing work that is changing with this so that things are coherent, this is the design that we are landing on.

The SystemConfig.initialize function would accept a Roles struct, it would be good to add the operatorFeeManager to that Roles struct and have no setter function meaning the operator can only change with another call to initialize. This helps keep the ABI slim and allows for each chain operator to have its own individual account that is used.

It is still possible to have each chain have its own individual accounts in the world where its sourced from the SuperchainConfig, it just means that chains that aren't governed by Optimism would deploy their own SuperchainConfig. Apologies for the back and forth, was trying to be consistent with designs in the Standard L2 Genesis project and we were flip flopping internally on how we were going to do it

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This makes more sense to me than the superchain solution, happy to proceed in this direction. Once the spec lands for the Roles struct then I'll update this spec accordingly -- I've been yet unable to find reference to the design choices you linked.

@@ -67,19 +82,73 @@ The following actions should happen during the initialization of the `SystemConf
- `emit ConfigUpdate.GAS_LIMIT`
- `emit ConfigUpdate.UNSAFE_BLOCK_SIGNER`
- `emit ConfigUpdate.EIP_1559_PARAMS`
- `emit ConfigUpdate.OPERATOR_FEE_PARAMS`
- `emit ConfigUpdate.OPERATOR_FEE_MANAGER`
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We don't need to have the manager be a ConfigUpdate, you can remove this

function setOperatorFeeScalar(uint32 _operatorFeeScalar, uint64 _operatorFeeConstant)()
```

##### `setOperatorFeeManager`
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I would like to delete this setter and instead source the fee manager from the superchain config as mentioned in a previous comment

@tynes
Copy link
Contributor

tynes commented Oct 16, 2024

This spec is looking great so far! Implementation will want to build on top of ethereum-optimism/optimism#12057 which is targeting audit Nov 4th, so it should be merged in over the next 2 weeks

@refcell
Copy link
Contributor

refcell commented Nov 4, 2024

Any updates here?

@yuwen01
Copy link
Contributor Author

yuwen01 commented Nov 8, 2024

Hi! Sorry for the delay, but I've updated the spec setting the operator fee manager in the Roles struct. See system-config.md in the isthmus folder.


| Input arg | Type | Calldata bytes | Segment |
| ----------------- | ------- | -------------- | ------- |
| {0x098999be} | | 0-3 | n/a |
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

what is this?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

That's the call signature for the function. Those 4 bytes are the first four bytes of keccak("setL1BlockValuesIsthmus()"). I'll clarify this in the spec.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Bump on adding this to the spec to make it clear what this is

This function MUST only be callable by the [`OperatorFeeManager`](#operator-fee-manager).

```solidity
function setOperatorFeeScalar(uint32 _operatorFeeScalar, uint64 _operatorFeeConstant)()
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

small nit: I think its fine to omit the trailing () when there is no return arg


**Description:** Operator fee scalar -- used to calculate the operator fee<br/>
**Administrator:** [Operator Fee Manager](#operator-fee-manager)<br/>
**Requirement:** Between 0 and 0.5 * (baseFee + priorityFee) <br/>
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This isn't noted anywhere, apologies about that, but its probably best to put these configurability requirements in this file so they are all in a single place

Also we would like to say that the requirement for these values is 0 for now for the superchain, with op-succinct you can use them however you would like, then when we do add zk as part of the superchain's proof system we can define the ranges of values. We don't have bandwidth to really think deeply about what the standard values should be from a product perspective and while what you have now could make sense, I don't want to ratify something thru gov that ultimately isnt right

@tynes
Copy link
Contributor

tynes commented Nov 14, 2024

This generally looks good to me. Some work started in ethereum-optimism/optimism#12847 to define the config for isthmus that you can build on. cc @vdamle for visibility

@tynes
Copy link
Contributor

tynes commented Nov 14, 2024

cc @trianglesphere come leave a review please


#### Configuring Parameters

`operatorFeeScalar` and `operatorFeeConstant` are loaded in a similar way to the `baseFeeScalar` and
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I saw comment somewhere, maybe gone by now, that there would be restrictions on how large the operator fee scalar and fee constant should be set. If this feature becomes a standard chain features I think that this restriction is very important to protect user funds.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think that the operator fee will probably not become part of the superchain config since it adds complexity. Its purpose is more intended for non-standard chains, like op-succinct chains, for example.

My previous proposal wa the at the constant was between 0 and 600 Gwei and that the scalar was between 0 and 0.5x (basefee + priorityfee).

Copy link
Contributor

@refcell refcell left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This looks good, just add a clarifier for the l1 block attributes function signature so it's clear what that value is at the top of the table in l1-attributes.md.

@yuwen01
Copy link
Contributor Author

yuwen01 commented Nov 25, 2024

This looks good, just add a clarifier for the l1 block attributes function signature so it's clear what that value is at the top of the table in l1-attributes.md.

Thanks! Just fixed.

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.

6 participants