@ysv reviewed 2 of 2 files at r1, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @masihyeganeh and @TxCorpi0x)

x/pse/keeper/score_map.go line 50 at r1 (raw file):

		return nil
	}
	key, err := m.addressCodec.BytesToString(addr)

but shouldn't we skip excluded addresses here also ?

This way they will not be accounted in total score also and as result we will be able to distribute ~100% of allocated tokens.
Because with current implementation significant amount might be left

Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @masihyeganeh, @TxCorpi0x, and @ysv)

x/pse/keeper/score_map.go line 50 at r1 (raw file):

we never get this code since it is called in one of the iterations.

@ysv reviewed 1 of 1 files at r2, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @masihyeganeh, @miladz68, and @TxCorpi0x)

x/pse/keeper/score_map.go line 50 at r1 (raw file):

I see what you mean.
However, it was a bit confusing because AddScore method is public, but it is used by iterateDelegationTimeEntries & iterateAccountScoreSnapshot both of which are private.

maybe we should make addScore private also because otherwise excluded addresses logic might be broken if addScore is called externally

Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @masihyeganeh, @TxCorpi0x, and @ysv)

x/pse/keeper/score_map.go line 50 at r1 (raw file):

make sense. Done.

@TxCorpi0x reviewed 2 of 2 files at r1, 2 of 2 files at r3, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @masihyeganeh and @ysv)

@ysv reviewed 2 of 2 files at r3, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on @masihyeganeh)