[R4R] Slight cleanup of distribution specification

[alexanderbez]

Was re-reading through the spec and found some sentences that were worded...weirdly, so this PR simply includes some minor Markdown fixes and a few bits of rephrasing.

---

• Targeted PR against correct branch (see CONTRIBUTING.md)

• Linked to github-issue with discussion and accepted design OR link to spec that describes this work.

• Wrote tests

• Updated relevant documentation (docs/)

• Added entries in PENDING.md with issue #

• rereviewed Files changed in the github PR explorer

---

For Admin Use:

• Added appropriate labels to PR (ex. wip, ready-for-review, docs)
• Reviewers Assigned
• Squashed all commits, uses message "Merge pull request #XYZ: [title]" (coding standards)

[alexanderbez]

Also, I find the following to be a mouthful and somewhat hard to grasp:

If there are Atom commissions and auto-bonding Atoms, the portion
of Atoms in 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.

Maybe it's just me? 😅

[cwgoes]

No, it could be better phrased, maybe: If there are both commissions and auto-bonding on the staking token, the amount of staking tokens each validator and delegator has would change each block, so we would have to iterate through all of them

cc @rigelrozanski

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #2765 into develop will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@           Coverage Diff            @@
##           develop    #2765   +/-   ##
========================================
  Coverage    56.68%   56.68%           
========================================
  Files          156      156           
  Lines         9788     9788           
========================================
  Hits          5548     5548           
  Misses        3862     3862           
  Partials       378      378

[cwgoes]

Thanks for the updates, a few more suggestions.

[cwgoes]

No, it could be better phrased, maybe: If there are both commissions and auto-bonding on the staking token, the amount of staking tokens each validator and delegator has would change each block, so we would have to iterate through all of them

cc @rigelrozanski

[alexanderbez]

Updated @cwgoes -- thanks for the feedback.

[cwgoes]

ACK from me. @rigelrozanski should review this too.

[rigelrozanski]

reviewing this morning

[rigelrozanski]

just blocking merge until I review

[rigelrozanski]

check em' changes oot

[alexanderbez]

@rigelrozanski Updated!