refactor: account for staking contract deposit value #186
Conversation
kupermind
commented
Jul 16, 2024
kupermind
commented
- Account for staking contract deposit value.
| return false; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // Check for time for emissions |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| // Check for time for emissions | |
| // Check for time for emissions. This lets the verifier enforce an upper bound on the emissions length for risk mitigation. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@kupermind confirming that timeForEmissions is related to activity period?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No, it's related to emissionsAmount of instance that requests that amount from the incentive dispenser.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I was thinking of livenessPeriod.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can we add the relevant getters so a future Verifier can also impose constrains on livenessPeriod?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You mean add the livenessPeriodLimit variable?
| address implementation = instanceParams.implementation; | ||
|
|
||
| // Check that the implementation corresponds to the proxy instance | ||
| if (implementation == address(0)) { | ||
| return false; | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why was this removed?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This check is now useless, it was left there before the struct with implementation / deployer / isEnabled existed. The isEnabled is what matters, and if the implementation is zero, the isEnabled is false by default.
| return false; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // Check for time for emissions |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can we add the relevant getters so a future Verifier can also impose constrains on livenessPeriod?
