feat(protocol): alpha-4 with staking-based tokenomics

[dantaik]

Initial implementation of a token-staking based tokenomics.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #14065 (42bbc5f) into main (d5ca9c1) will increase coverage by 16.85%.
Report is 70 commits behind head on main.
The diff coverage is 36.32%.

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #14065       +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage   50.89%   67.75%   +16.85%     
===========================================
  Files         153       88       -65     
  Lines        3973     3045      -928     
  Branches      336      112      -224     
===========================================
+ Hits         2022     2063       +41     
+ Misses       1840      859      -981     
- Partials      111      123       +12     

Flag	Coverage Δ
bridge-ui	94.25% <100.00%> (-0.02%)	⬇️
eventindexer	51.71% <35.71%> (-9.36%)	⬇️
protocol	?
relayer	59.13% <ø> (ø)
ui	?

Files Changed	Coverage Δ
packages/bridge-ui/src/token/tokens.ts	100.00% <ø> (ø)
...exer/http/get_assigned_blocks_by_prover_address.go	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
packages/eventindexer/http/get_current_provers.go	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
packages/eventindexer/http/user_added_liquidity.go	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
packages/eventindexer/http/get_pos_stats.go	26.31% <26.31%> (ø)
packages/eventindexer/repo/event.go	57.57% <41.86%> (-7.60%)	⬇️
packages/eventindexer/http/get_stats.go	66.66% <62.50%> (+4.16%)	⬆️
packages/eventindexer/http/get_unique_proposers.go	71.42% <62.50%> (-1.30%)	⬇️
packages/eventindexer/http/get_unique_provers.go	71.42% <62.50%> (-1.30%)	⬇️
packages/eventindexer/http/server.go	91.11% <81.25%> (-5.00%)	⬇️
... and 2 more

... and 69 files with indirect coverage changes

📣 We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. Learn more

[cyberhorsey]

@Brechtpd @davidtaikocha @adaki2004 could you please approve this PR again for merging before too many changes on the main branch?

I can approve, but should the protocol build pass first? Also seems a bunch of warnings that the new vaults exceed max solidity contract size?

[adaki2004]

@Brechtpd @davidtaikocha @adaki2004 could you please approve this PR again for merging before too many changes on the main branch?

I can approve, but should the protocol build pass first? Also seems a bunch of warnings that the new vaults exceed max solidity contract size?

I'd wait also, there is a fix for the failing test on a separate branch (with rearranging the 2 release (ETH+token) TXN into 1), tho i do not see any code size exceeded issues.

Update: yeah, forge build does not throw them - with hardhat compile i see it, will address on the same branch i mentioned.