fix: display runepool name and rune asset

[NeOMakinG]

Description

We are displaying THORChain instead of RUNEPool in the opportunities

We are displaying Need some THORChain? instead of Need some RUNE? in the overview

I added some patches so if it's runepool, we are displaying the right names, while it might not be the best solution, it's actually the best quickfix I could find

Pull Request Type

• 🐛 Bug fix (Non-breaking Change: Fixes an issue)
• 🛠️ Chore (Non-breaking Change: Doc updates, pkg upgrades, typos, etc..)
• 💅 New Feature (Breaking/Non-breaking Change)

Issue (if applicable)

closes #7526

Risk

Very low

What protocols, transaction types, wallets or contract interactions might be affected by this PR?

Testing

• Go to the earn opportunity list
• See that RUNEPool is displayed instead of THORChain
• If you don't have any liquidity in it, open the overview page by clicking the THORChain row and see Need some RUNE? instead of Need some THORChain?

Engineering

n/a

Operations

n/a

• 🏁 My feature is behind a flag and doesn't require operations testing (yet)

Screenshots (if applicable)

[gomesalexandre]

While this does fix things according to #7526, I'm not sure about this one and we should probably strive for consistency rather than following what may or may not have been a misunderstanding from ops 🙏🏽

• Asset rows are now inconsistent, i.e what should be the asset name is now the opportunity name (monkey patched as RUNEPool)

• THORChain is still shown as a reward asset vs. RUNE

• Overview shows "RUNEPool - THORChain savers" which is technically wrong - the only reason why RUNEPool is part of THORChain savers opportunity is because of our own code reuse, however, savers !== RUNEPool. Though this one may not be tackled now (and possibly never) - we would need to explicitly decouple savers and RUNEPool and having RUNEPool as part of savers may actually be "sufficiently fine" from a user-perspective (i.e whether RUNEPool is part of savers or not is a UX nitpick and one could argue there's nothing wrong as showing it like so, as if it looks like savers, walks like savers and quacks like savers, it effectively is savers).

@NeOMakinG think we should probably take a second before adding more monkey patches here, and think of a way to follow our DeFi abstraction conventions:

• as @kaladinlight mentioned, we should make consistent use of asset symbol vs. name across the abstraction (which would solve the THORChain vs. RUNE issue)
• thankfully, StakingEarnOpportunityType already has opportunityName which leverages opportunity.name (which itself uses symbols). Not sure why we don't make consistent use of this, but this should realistically be all we need. See fix: display runepool name and rune asset #7540 (comment)

[NeOMakinG]

I'm align with your idea @gomesalexandre, can we double check with @shapeshift/product of they are too?

I've done it in 0ec463b

And here is the final result

[gomesalexandre]

Tested locally, confirmed this does what it says on the box:

• RUNEPool

• Other savers

• Other DeFi opportunities

Two suggestions here before we land this:

1. use RUNE symbol for consistency vs. RUNEPool, see https://github.com/shapeshift/web/pull/7540/files#r1718488923
2. Remove the Vault suffix to keep naming aligned with the current develop one

   web/src/state/slices/opportunitiesSlice/resolvers/thorchainsavers/index.ts

   Line 164 in 98d1cb5

   name: `${underlyingAsset.symbol} Vault`,