This design describes a modification to the method that is used to calculate vote credits earned by validator votes.
Vote credits are the accounting method used to determine what percentage of inflation rewards a validator earns on behalf of its stakers. Currently, when a slot that a validator has previously voted on is "rooted", it earns 1 vote credit. A "rooted" slot is one which has received full committment by the validator (i.e. has been finalized).
One problem with this simple accounting method is that it awards one credit regardless of how "old" the slot that was voted on at the time that it was voted on. This means that a validator can delay its voting for many slots in order to survey forks and wait to make votes that are less likely to be expired, and without incurring any penalty for doing so. This is not just a theoretical concern: there are known and documented instances of validators using this technique to significantly delay their voting while earning more credits as a result.
The proposal is to award a variable number of vote credits per voted on slot, with more credits being given for votes that have "less latency" than votes that have "more latency".
In this context, "latency" is the number of slots in between the slot that is being voted on and the slot in which the vote has landed. Because a slot cannot be voted on until after it has been completed, the minimum possible latency is 1, which would occur when a validator voted as quickly as possible, transmitting its vote on that slot in time for it to be included in the very next slot.
Credits awarded would become a function of this latency, with lower latencies awarding more credits. This will discourage intentional "lagging", because delaying a vote for any slots decreases the number of credits that vote will earn, because it will necessarily land in a later slot if it is delayed, and then earn a lower number of credits than it would have earned had it been transmitted immediately and landed in an earlier slot.
If landing a vote with 1 slot latency awarded more credit than landing that same vote in 2 slots latency, then validators who could land votes consistently wihthin 1 slot would have a credits earning advantage over those who could not. Part of the latency when transmitting votes is unavoidable as it's a function of geographical distance between the sender and receiver of the vote. The Solana network is spread around the world but it is not evenly distributed over the whole planet; there are some locations which are, on average, more distant from the network than others are.
It would likely be harmful to the network to encourage tight geographical concentration - if, for example, the only way to achieve 1 slot latency was to be within a specific country - then a very strict credit rewards schedule would encourage all validators to move to the same country in order to maximize their credit earnings.
For this reason, the credits reward schedule should have a built-in "grace period" that gives all validators a "reasonable" amount of time to land their votes. This will reduce the credits earning disadvantage that comes from being more distant from the network. A balance needs to be struck between the strictest rewards schedule, which most strongly discourages intentional lagging, and more lenient rewards schedules, which improves credit earnings for distant validators who are not artificially lagging.
Historical voting data has been analyzed over many epochs and the data suggests that the smallest grace period that allows for very minimal impact on well behaved distant validators is 3 slots, which means that all slots voted on within 3 slots will award maximum vote credits to the voting validator. This gives validators nearly 2 seconds to land their votes without penalty. The maximum latency between two points on Earth is about 100 ms, so allowing a full 1,500 ms to 2,000 ms latency without penalty should not have adverse impact on distant validators.
Another factor to consider is what the maximum vote credits to award for a vote should be. Assuming linear reduction in vote credits awarded (where 1 slot of additional lag reduces earned vote credits by 1), the maximum vote credits value determines how much "penalty" there is for each additional slot of latency. For example, a value of 10 would mean that after the grace period slots, every additional slot of latency would result in a 10% reduction in vote credits earned as each subsequent slot earns 1 credit less out of a maximum possible 10 credits.
Again, historical voting data was analyzed over many epochs and the conclusion drawn was that a maximum credits of 10 is the largest value that can be used and still have a noticeable effect on known laggers. Values higher than that result in such a small penalty for each slot of lagging that intentional lagging is still too profitable. Lower values are even more punishing to intentional lagging; but an attempt has been made to conservatively choose the highest value that produces noticeable results.
The selection of these values is partially documented here:
The above document is somewhat out of date with more recent analysis, which occurred in this github issue:
To summarize the findings of these documents: analysis over many epochs showed that almost all validators from all regions have an average vote latency of 1 slot or less. The validators with higher average latency are either known laggers, or are not representative of their region since many other validators in the same region achieve low latency voting. With a maximum vote credit of 10, there is almost no change in vote credits earned relative to the highest vote earner by the majority of validators, aside from a general uplift of about 0.4%. Additionally, data centers were analyzed to ensure that there aren't regions of the world that would be adversely affected, and none were found.
When a Vote or VoteStateUpdate instruction is received by a validator, it will use the Clock sysvar to identify the slot in which that instruction has landed. For any newly voted on slot within that Vote or VoteStateUpdate transaction, the validator will record the vote latency of that slot as (voted_in_slot - voted_on_slot).
These vote latencies will be stored a new vector of u8 latency values appended to the end of the VoteState. VoteState currently has ~200 bytes of free space at the end that is unused, so this new vector of u8 values should easily fit within this available space. Because VoteState is an ABI frozen structure, utilizing the mechanisms for updating frozen ABI will be required, which will complicate the change. Furthermore, because VoteState is embedded in the Tower data structure and it is frozen ABI as well, updates to the frozen ABI mechanisms for Tower will be needed also. These are almost entirely mechanical changes though, that involve ensuring that older versions of these data structures can be updated to the new version as they are read in, and the new version written out when the data structure is next persisted.
The credits to award for a rooted slot will be calculated using the latency value stored in latency vector for the slot, and a formula that awards latencies of 1 - 3 slots ten credits, with a 1 credit reduction for each vote latency after 3. Rooted slots will always be awarded a minimum credit of 1 (never 0) so that very old votes, possibly necessary in times of network stress, are not discouraged.
To summarize the above: latency is recorded in a new Vector at the end of VoteState when a vote first lands, but the credits for that slot are not awarded until the slot becomes rooted, at which point the latency that was recorded is used to compute the credits to award for that newly rooted slot.
When a Vote instruction is processed, the changes are fairly easy to implement as Vote can only add new slots to the end of Lockouts and pop existing slots off of the back (which become rooted), so the logic merely has to compute rewards for the new roots, and new latencies for the newly added slots, both of which can be processed in the fairly simple existing logic for Vote processing.
When a VoteStateUpdate instruction is processed:
For each slot that was in the previous VoteState but are not in the new VoteState because they have been rooted in the transition from the old VoteState to the new VoteState, credits to award are calculated based on the latency that was recorded for them and still available in the old VoteState.
For each slot that was in both the previous VoteState and the new VoteState, the latency that was previously recorded for that slot is copied from the old VoteState to the new VoteState.
For each slot that is in the new VoteState but wasn't in the old VoteState, the latency value is calculated for this new slot according to what slot the vote is for and what slot is in the Clock (i.e. the slot this VoteStateUpdate tx landed in) and this latency is stored in VoteState for that slot.
The code to handle this is more complex, because VoteStateUpdate may include removal of slots that expired as performed by the voting validator, in addition to slots that have been rooted and new slots added. However, the assumptions that are needed to handle VoteStateUpdate with timely vote credits are already guaranteed by existing VoteStateUpdate correctness checking code:
The existing VoteStateUpdate processing code already ensures that (1) only roots slots that could actually have been rooted in the transition from the old VoteState to the new VoteState, so there is no danger of over-counting credits (i.e. imagine that a 'cheating' validator "pretended" that slots were rooted by dropping them off of the back of the new VoteState before they have actually achieved 32 confirmations; the existing logic prevents this).
The existing VoteStateUpdate processing code already ensures that (2) new slots included in the new VoteState are only slots after slots that have already been voted on in the old VoteState (i.e. can't inject new slots in the middle of slots already voted on).