Advancer exo #10390
Comments
0xpatrickdev
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Nov 7, 2024
0xpatrickdev
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Nov 7, 2024
0xpatrickdev
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Nov 8, 2024
0xpatrickdev
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Nov 8, 2024
0xpatrickdev
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Nov 9, 2024
0xpatrickdev
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Nov 11, 2024
0xpatrickdev
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Nov 11, 2024
0xpatrickdev
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Nov 11, 2024
0xpatrickdev
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Nov 13, 2024
0xpatrickdev
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Nov 13, 2024
0xpatrickdev
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Nov 13, 2024
0xpatrickdev
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Nov 15, 2024
0xpatrickdev
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Nov 15, 2024
0xpatrickdev
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Nov 15, 2024
mergify bot
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Nov 15, 2024
refs: #10390 ## Description - [x] advancer performs balance check - [x] advancer requests payment from `LiquidityPool` - [x] advancer deposits payment in `PoolAccount` - [x] advancer submits IBC transfer ### Security Considerations Deals with live payments and ensures they do not get lost during failure paths ### Scaling Considerations No new ones introduced ### Documentation Considerations ### Testing Considerations Includes tests ### Upgrade Considerations NA, unreleased
mergify bot
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Nov 18, 2024
refs: #10390 ## Description - Add `FeeConfig` to `privateArgs` so deployers can adjust fees over time (terms are immutable) - Adds `FeeTools` for calculating net advance and fee splits - Integrates `FeeTools` with `Advancer` ### Security Considerations - None really for these specific changes. We might need to think about timing from when the `Advancer` calls `calculateAdvance` and the `Settler` calls `calculateSplit`, as the `FeeConfig` values might change. - From a product POV, users might pay more in fees than the net advance they receive. So we might consider a config parameter for a "minimum request amount". ### Scaling Considerations None really, mainly contains AmountMath computation. ### Documentation Considerations Includes jsdoc and code comments ### Testing Considerations Includes unit tests for FeeTools, attempting to cover all foreseeable scenarios. A bit light on testing integrations with the advancer and settler. ### Upgrade Considerations N/A, unreleased
mergify bot
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Nov 19, 2024
refs: #10390 ## Description - Adds `borrower` and `repayer` facets to the `Liquidity Pool` - Track `outstandingLends: Amount` in state for `checkPoolBalance` invariant - Track `PoolMetrics` like cumulative borrows, repays, and fees ### Security Considerations Handles payment allocations, but is able to do so synchronously using a temporary seats provided by the callers. ### Scaling Considerations Makes a vstorage writes for each borrow and repay. ### Documentation Considerations Updates code comments for maintainers. ### Testing Considerations Tests use test-only methods on the createFacet to simulate fees from a borrow/repay sequence. Tests ensure `zcf.atomicRearrange()` in `.borrow()` and `.repay()` will not fail and trigger `zcf.shutdownWithFailure()`. ### Upgrade Considerations None, unreleased
2 tasks
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
What is the Problem Being Solved?
Fast USDC needs a component to perform advances.
Description of the Design
An Advancer exo that performs the advancement operations.
It looks them up from Status Manager and returns updates.
PoolAccount.transfer()StatusManagerPoolSeattoPoolAccountSecurity Considerations
Scaling Considerations
Test Plan
Exo test
Contract test is separate: #10388
Upgrade Considerations
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: