CIP-52 (EBBO Updates) #432
Conversation
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎
|
|
Comment: i attempted a few ways to resolve the issue with hyperlinks but didn't find the right way yet. Will make sure to address this soon. |
|
|
||
| A certificate for an EBBO violation consists of a reference routing on a block (and log index) between the start of the auction and when the settlement happened onchain. A reference routing for a trade at a given block (and index) is an execution of that trade which only uses liquidity from base protocols and routes through base tokens (see [here](/cow-protocol/reference/core/auctions/competition-rules#base-tokens) for the definition of base protocols and base tokens). The surplus received by users in this routing is used as reference surplus. The difference between the reference surplus and the surplus actually received by the user is the size of the EBBO violation. This amount needs to be reimbursed to a user. | ||
|
|
||
| A certificate for an EBBO violation can be challenged by the solver who is accused of the EBBO violation by providing a different block (and index), within 72 hours of the notification of the violation. In this case, a reference routing on this block (and index) might be proposed by the core team and used as certificate instead. The new certificate, if any, cannot be challenged again. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I find the "in this case" part confusing. In the case of a solver challenging the core team is also proposing another certificate?
Why not allow it to be challenged by anyone?
Also small advice, if you make every sentence it's own line it doesn't change formatting but will make changes later easier to review (since diff doesn't work well on a single line).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This was the phrasing in the CIP, and the intention was to avoid a lot of back and forth. I think anyone can challenge certificates, the core team should just verify the claim, and this can basically be done once. Which suggests that the solver that is "accused" of an EBBO violation should provide a definitive proof that there was no violation; if that proof can be challenged again, we conclude that there was an EBBO violation.
Not sure if that answers your concern.
| 2. The core team calculates the (minimum) value lost to users in a given settlement due to the EBBO violation, as described in the section above. | ||
|
|
||
| 3. The core team requests the involved solver team to reimburse the user directly, by informing them about the amount: | ||
| - The reimbursement is to be done in the surplus token and sent from a responsible solver’s submission / owned address for clarity about who issued the refund. If the solver has no access to their submission account (in case this is managed by the core team), then the core team should transfer any desired amount from the submission account to a solver-related address (i.e. their rewards account), if such a request is made from the solver. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
can we not reference core team owned solver accounts in the docs please.
|
|
||
| 1. A violation is detected, within 3 months from the incident date. | ||
|
|
||
| 2. The core team calculates the (minimum) value lost to users in a given settlement due to the EBBO violation, as described in the section above. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why does the core team need to calculate it? We have established above that anyone can claim and then challenge an EBBO violation. Why isn't the outcome of this permissionless process used as the basis for calculation?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good point. I believe this does allow for anyone to provide a certificate of an EBBO violation but i guess this part implies that the core team will lead the discussion on this and verify the calculation. Maybe this is too restrictive, but this is how it was phrased in the CIP
| ## Note for non-colocated drivers | ||
|
|
||
| For all CoW DAO bonded and non co-located drivers, MEV blocker rebates from trade settlements are accumulated in the CoW DAO owned MEV Blocker Rebates Safe. As per decision of CoW DAO, the rebates from the MEV Blocker Rebates Safe are redirected to the CoW DAO Treasury Core unit (cf. CIP-33), which is also a one-out-of-two owner of the MEV Blocker Rebates Safe next to CoW DAO itself. | ||
|
|
||
| With the successful passing of this proposal, the MEV blocker rebate that is directly associated with the execution of the order in question, if any, shall be used to refund the solver (to clarify: if the MEV blocker rebate is smaller than the solver’s reimbursement to the user, it is used fully to refund the solver to that extent. If the MEV blocker rebate is bigger than the solver’s reimbursement to the user, only the actually reimbursed amount is refunded to the solver). Refunds will be handled by the CoW DAO Treasury Core Unit within a few weeks after the reimbursement is made, and will be sent to the solver address from which the reimbursement has happened. For avoidance of doubt, the CoW DAO Treasury Core unit has autonomy on selecting any position to be liquidated for this purpose in case the MEV Blocker Rebates Safe does not have sufficient accumulated funds. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think this section needs to be part of the docs.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, good point. Removed it.
This PR updates the documentation to accommodate for the changes proposed in CIP-52, that is currently live and open for voting.
Note that this PR should be merged ONLY if CIP-52 successfully passes.