-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 414
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
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this 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 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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
This issue came up when running the cage-keeper in
kovan
. The documentation needs to be more clear.