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

cmooney-20210430: Add note about skim()/thaw() #230

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

godsflaw
Copy link
Contributor

This issue came up when running the cage-keeper in kovan. The documentation needs to be more clear.

Verified

This commit was signed with the committer’s verified signature.
godsflaw Christopher Mooney
Copy link

@EdNoepel EdNoepel left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Please adjust line 135 to clarify that not only undercollateralized urns should be skimmed.

@@ -148,6 +148,11 @@ interface SpotLike {
all auctions are in the reverse (`dent`) phase. There are two ways
of ensuring this:

NOTE: In the event there's a system surplus, and there are no
under-collateralised vaults remaining, one must skim() large CDPs in order

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Is it only large CDPs? Seems like if we need 0 surplus we need to skim all non-empty CDPs.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We shouldn't need to skim() everything, as we just need enough to collect fees get surplus to 0. The surplus cap means some of those fees are owed, but were sent off to surplus auctions. That is, surplus < all fees owed.

@@ -148,6 +148,11 @@ interface SpotLike {
all auctions are in the reverse (`dent`) phase. There are two ways
of ensuring this:

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This line references two options on old line 151 and 158. The new comment seems to be wedged in the middle

Copy link
Contributor

@gbalabasquer gbalabasquer May 5, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yeah, I'd suggest moving the new paragraph right after - backing collateral taken

@godsflaw godsflaw requested a review from gbalabasquer May 3, 2021 18:09
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.

3 participants