feat(redelegate stake): init gar implementaion PE-7058 #192
Conversation
…id is provided PE-7058
…stGateway PE-7058
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop #192 +/- ##
===========================================
+ Coverage 92.02% 92.35% +0.32%
===========================================
Files 11 11
Lines 2609 2746 +137
===========================================
+ Hits 2401 2536 +135
- Misses 208 210 +2 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
…pply states PE-7058
…edelegation useage and update settings
| local redelegationFeeRate = gar.getRedelegationFee(delegateAddress).redelegationFeeRate | ||
|
|
||
| local redelegationFee = math.ceil(stakeToTakeFromSource * (redelegationFeeRate / 100)) | ||
| local stakeToDelegate = stakeToTakeFromSource - redelegationFee |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So the redelegator chooses an amount of stake they are willing to participate in the move, and they basically get that amount minus any fees redelegated?
The other approach would be to move the amount they want to move and assess fees on TOP of that. Just want to make sure we're aligned with the intention from the white paper.
| local existingStake = existingDelegate.delegatedStake | ||
| local requiredMinimumStake = sourceGateway.settings.minDelegatedStake | ||
| local maxAllowedToWithdraw = existingStake - requiredMinimumStake | ||
| assert( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's interesting that we have this barrier here since the user could always commence a withdraw of their stake and then begin a redelegation. We grapple with this a bit with funding plans where, since we acknowledge this potential user workaround, we err on the side of a good UX for the user and simply "break a 20" on their minimum stake if necessary. We'll use it all if we have to, or we'll leave behind the excess in a withdraw vault. I'm wondering why we wouldn't just do the same here (we can check with Jon).
src/gar.lua
Outdated
| ) | ||
|
|
||
| -- If the delegate has enough stake to redelegate, move the stake. If its all the stake, remove the delegate | ||
| if existingDelegate.delegatedStake == stakeToTakeFromSource then |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is only appropriate if the delegate has no withdraw vaults. We'll have to fix this.
| local minimumStakeForGatewayAndDelegate | ||
| if existingTargetDelegate and existingTargetDelegate.delegatedStake ~= 0 then | ||
| -- It already has a stake that is not zero | ||
| minimumStakeForGatewayAndDelegate = 1 -- Delegate must provide at least one additional IO |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is this supposed to be 1 IO or 1 mIO? The unit is mIO but the comment says IO.
src/gar.lua
Outdated
| redelegations = (previousRedelegations and previousRedelegations.redelegations or 0) + 1, | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| -- prune user from allow list, if necessary, to save memory |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not quite how this works. User goes back on the allowlist on the source gateway IF they've been pruned, otherwise their active balance or vaults "holds their spot" on the gateway. On the destination gateway, we take them out of the allowlist lookup if we create a new delegation for them.
TODO:
redelegate from vaults (do we put into a vault, or as a delegation)add pruning of redelegates when seven epochs reachedfinish unit testsinit integration testsgetReDelegationFee handlerHandle event API -- caclucate delegated stake