liquidation penalty proceeds to reserve #5387
Conversation
| await userSeatPromise; | ||
| const deposits = await deposited; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| await userSeatPromise; | |
| const deposits = await deposited; | |
| const [deposits] = await Promise.all([userSeatPromise, deposited]); |
| @@ -45,6 +45,7 @@ const contractRoots = { | |||
| liquidate: './src/vaultFactory/liquidateIncrementally.js', | |||
| VaultFactory: './src/vaultFactory/vaultFactory.js', | |||
| amm: './src/vpool-xyk-amm/multipoolMarketMaker.js', | |||
| reserve: './src/reserve/assetReserve.js', | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please add a test that notices that the penalties have been drained to the reserve.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Did you see 513f944? (it was 16min before the review posted but I'm guessing the browser window hadn't updated)
| @@ -102,6 +102,10 @@ const start = async (zcf, privateArgs) => { | |||
|
|
|||
| /** @type {ZCFMint} */ | |||
| const runMint = await zcf.registerFeeMint('RUN', feeMintAccess); | |||
| const centralBrand = runMint.getIssuerRecord().brand; | |||
| // FIXME second term of tuple must be the liquidity brand | |||
| brandForKeyword.init('Central', [centralBrand, centralBrand]); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think it would be constructive to add it this way. The liquidity keyword can't be replaced once this runs. Should it call addIssuer in the test?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Agree there's got to be a better way. addIssuer fails however. I'll wait to see what options might work after #5377
turadg
force-pushed
the
5367-liq-to-reserve
branch
from
2027a92 to
222b748
Compare
turadg
force-pushed
the
5367-liq-to-reserve
branch
from
222b748 to
b431916
Compare
turadg
added
the
automerge:no-update
|
|
||
| const makeLiquidityKeyword = keyword => `${keyword}Liquidity`; | ||
|
|
||
| const RunKW = 'RUN'; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Interesting... I have put my toe in the water with constants for keywords... I'm not entirely happy with the results. let's see how it goes here...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Did you consider something like StableKW where only the value would change when we go to IST?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I like that idea and it didn't occur to me. I wouldn't want to do it in just this PR but I'll think about it for #4800
IST seems so central to the package that my intuition is abstracting it would just add cognitive load and provide no benefit. I see it could be beneficial in making the transition easier, but that's a one-shot change that shouldn't burden regular development.
| await waitForPromisesToSettle(); | ||
|
|
||
| const { reserveCreatorFacet } = t.context; | ||
| const reserveAllocations = await E(reserveCreatorFacet).getAllocations(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
getAllocations is on the creator facet? odd. I wonder why that is.
closes: #5367
Description
Upon completion of liquidation, push penalty proceeds to the reserve.
Security Considerations
Reserve can now accept RUN anytime from anywhere.
Documentation Considerations
--
Testing Considerations
New test