feat: more useful staking events in Governance
#98
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Previously, the details of V1 rewards were emitted by `UserProxy`. This made it harder to query all the information pertaining to the V1 staking that goes through V2, because each user has their own `UserProxy` address. Plus, the event `WithdrawLQTY` suffered from an issue which has already been fixed for the corresponding event in `UserProxy`, which is that a user can attempt to withdraw more than their V1 staking LQTY balance, in which case the withdrawal gets truncated, but the parameter `withdrawnLQTY` didn't reflect this truncation. As we don't really need to have duplicate events (`UserProxy` & `Governance`) anyway, we eliminate them from `UserProxy` but expose the details to `Governance`, so that it may emit more useful events of its own.
|
|
||
| if (_doSendRewards) { | ||
| (lusdAmount, ethAmount) = _sendRewards(_recipient, initialLUSDAmount, initialETHAmount); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Removing duplicate _sendRewards() (it's already called by stake() above.
bingen
approved these changes
Dec 9, 2024
| uint256 lusdReceived; | ||
| uint256 ethReceived; | ||
|
|
||
| (lqtyReceived, lqtySent, lusdReceived, lusdSent, ethReceived, ethSent) = |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I guess lqty values will always be zero here, right?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
lqtyReceived yes, but lqtySent may be positive if someone has previously sent LQTY to the UserProxy address, which UserProxy.unstake() would send to _rewardRecipient. This is documented in IGovernance.sol.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I considered returning the value of lqtySent, but in the end I didn't do it because it wouldn't normally be useful.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Previously, the details of V1 rewards were emitted by
UserProxy. This made it harder to query all the information pertaining to the V1 staking that goes through V2, because each user has their ownUserProxyaddress.Plus, the event
WithdrawLQTYsuffered from an issue which has already been fixed for the corresponding event inUserProxy, which is that a user can attempt to withdraw more than their V1 staking LQTY balance, in which case the withdrawal gets truncated, but the parameterwithdrawnLQTYdidn't reflect this truncation.As we don't really need to have duplicate events (
UserProxy&Governance) anyway, we eliminate them fromUserProxybut expose the details toGovernance, so that it may emit more useful events of its own.Fixes IR-11.