Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Feat #65: Improve balance lose check and mention it's details in docs #66

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Jan 9, 2024

Conversation

sourabhxyz
Copy link
Member

@sourabhxyz sourabhxyz commented Dec 20, 2023

Closes #65. Also see #62.

@sourabhxyz sourabhxyz requested a review from a team as a code owner December 20, 2023 03:57
Copy link

@adacapo21 adacapo21 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

A small repeated typo

README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@sourabhxyz sourabhxyz changed the title Improving docs to include information about balance loss check Feat #65: Improve balance lose check and mention it's details in docs Jan 3, 2024
Copy link

@adacapo21 adacapo21 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Seems ok to me.

@@ -49,8 +49,8 @@ over the multi-asset order book to obtain a list of matches. The matches are the
translated into transactions that will be signed and submitted by the bot.

Due to the open and decentralized design of the protocol, anybody can run a Smart Order
Router instance and collect a share of the fees, thus running a Smart Order Router instance
is not only contributiung to the further decentralization of the protocol, but it is also
Router instance and collect the arbitrage opportunities, thus running a Smart Order Router instance
Copy link
Contributor

@4TT1L4 4TT1L4 Jan 3, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

collect the arbitrage opportunities,

I think we should change the wording here. One does not "collect" opportunities.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sorry, could you elaborate / suggest the required changes?

README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
4TT1L4
4TT1L4 previously requested changes Jan 3, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

@4TT1L4 4TT1L4 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Please see my comments.

@sourabhxyz
Copy link
Member Author

Thanks for taking a look @adacapo21! The PR would be merged as soon as it is reviewed from someone else from team.

@adacapo21
Copy link

adacapo21 commented Jan 8, 2024

Thanks for taking a look @adacapo21! The PR would be merged as soon as it is reviewed from someone else from team.

You are welcome. Good luck! @sourabhxyz

@sourabhxyz sourabhxyz requested a review from 4TT1L4 January 8, 2024 13:12
@ajuggler
Copy link
Contributor

ajuggler commented Jan 9, 2024

The proposed changes ensure that there is no Ada loss, even when taking fees into account, when the currency is lovelaces; and that when the trade involves a non-lovelace currency then the Ada loss is only due to fees paid. This seems reasonable to me.

@sourabhxyz sourabhxyz dismissed 4TT1L4’s stale review January 9, 2024 06:00

Changes accounted.

Copy link
Contributor

@ajuggler ajuggler left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Proposed changes ensure that when trade only involves lovelace as currency, there is no Ada loss even when taking fees into account.

@sourabhxyz sourabhxyz merged commit 921f3d3 into main Jan 9, 2024
1 check passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

MAINNET SOR losing ADA in some cases
4 participants