Merge PR cosmos#2765: Slight cleanup of distribution specification

[R4R] Slight cleanup of distribution specification

docs/spec/distribution/overview.md

@@ -2,71 +2,75 @@
 
 ## Overview
 
-This _simple_ distribution mechanism describes a functional way to passively 
-distribute rewards between validator and delegators. Note that this mechanism does 
-not distribute funds in as precisely as active reward distribution and will therefore
-be upgraded in the future. 
+This _simple_ distribution mechanism describes a functional way to passively
+distribute rewards between validators and delegators. Note that this mechanism does
+not distribute funds in as precisely as active reward distribution mechanisms and
+will therefore be upgraded in the future.
 
 The mechanism operates as follows. Collected rewards are pooled globally and
 divided out passively to validators and delegators. Each validator has the
 opportunity to charge commission to the delegators on the rewards collected on
-behalf of the delegators by the validators. Fees are paid directly into a
-global reward pool, and validator proposer-reward pool. Due to the nature of
-passive accounting, whenever changes to parameters which affect the rate of reward
-distribution occurs, withdrawal of rewards must also occur.
-
- - Whenever withdrawing, one must withdraw the maximum amount they are entitled
-   too, leaving nothing in the pool. 
- - Whenever bonding, unbonding, or re-delegating tokens to an existing account, a
+behalf of the delegators. Fees are collected directly into a global reward pool
+and validator proposer-reward pool. Due to the nature of passive accounting,
+whenever changes to parameters which affect the rate of reward distribution
+occurs, withdrawal of rewards must also occur.
+
+- Whenever withdrawing, one must withdraw the maximum amount they are entitled
+   to, leaving nothing in the pool.
+- Whenever bonding, unbonding, or re-delegating tokens to an existing account, a
    full withdrawal of the rewards must occur (as the rules for lazy accounting
    change).
- - Whenever a validator chooses to change the commission on rewards, all accumulated 
+- Whenever a validator chooses to change the commission on rewards, all accumulated
    commission rewards must be simultaneously withdrawn.
 
 The above scenarios are covered in `hooks.md`.
 
-The distribution mechanism outlines herein is used to lazily distribute the
+The distribution mechanism outlined herein is used to lazily distribute the
 following rewards between validators and associated delegators:
- - multi-token fees to be socially distributed, 
- - proposer reward pool, 
- - inflated atom provisions, and
- - validator commission on all rewards earned by their delegators stake
+
+- multi-token fees to be socially distributed
+- proposer reward pool
+- inflated atom provisions
+- validator commission on all rewards earned by their delegators stake
 
 Fees are pooled within a global pool, as well as validator specific
 proposer-reward pools. The mechanisms used allow for validators and delegators
 to independently and lazily withdraw their rewards.  
 
-## Shortcomings 
+## Shortcomings
 
 As a part of the lazy computations, each delegator holds an accumulation term
 specific to each validator which is used to estimate what their approximate
-fair portion of tokens held in the global fee pool is owed to them. 
+fair portion of tokens held in the global fee pool is owed to them.
 
 ```
 entitlement = delegator-accumulation / all-delegators-accumulation
 ```
 
-Under the circumstance that there were constant and equal flow of incoming
+Under the circumstance that there was constant and equal flow of incoming
 reward tokens every block, this distribution mechanism would be equal to the
 active distribution (distribute individually to all delegators each block).
-However this is unrealistic so deviations from the active distribution will
+However, this is unrealistic so deviations from the active distribution will
 occur based on fluctuations of incoming reward tokens as well as timing of
-reward withdrawal by other delegators. 
+reward withdrawal by other delegators.
 
-If you happen to know that incoming rewards are about significantly move up,
+If you happen to know that incoming rewards are about to significantly increase,
 you are incentivized to not withdraw until after this event, increasing the
-worth of your existing _accum_.
+worth of your existing _accum_. See [#2764](https://github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/issues/2764)
+for further details.
 
 ## Affect on Staking
 
 Charging commission on Atom provisions while also allowing for Atom-provisions
 to be auto-bonded (distributed directly to the validators bonded stake) is
-problematic within DPoS. Fundamentally these two mechanisms are mutually
-exclusive. If there are Atom commissions and auto-bonding Atoms, the portion
-of Atoms the reward distribution calculation would become very large as the Atom
-portion for each delegator would change each block making a withdrawal of rewards
-for a delegator require a calculation for every single block since the last
-withdrawal. In conclusion, we can only have Atom commission and unbonded atoms
+problematic within BPoS. Fundamentally, these two mechanisms are mutually
+exclusive. If both commission and auto-bonding mechanisms are simultaneously
+applied to the staking-token then the distribution of staking-tokens between
+any validator and its delegators will change with each block. This then
+necessitates a calculation for each delegation records for each block -
+which is considered computationally expensive.
+
+In conclusion, we can only have Atom commission and unbonded atoms
 provisions or bonded atom provisions with no Atom commission, and we elect to
 implement the former. Stakeholders wishing to rebond their provisions may elect
-to set up a script to periodically withdraw and rebond rewards. 
+to set up a script to periodically withdraw and rebond rewards.