auto-compound staking #139
Conversation
ben2x4
force-pushed
the
compound-staking
branch
from
199e66f to
9d1318d
Compare
|
Pushed query functions and tests. I think names for queries could be worked on but current implementation should not break any existing contracts that query this contract. |
JakeHartnell
requested review from
0xekez,
maurolacy,
orkunkl and
vernonjohnson
| |bal| -> StdResult<Uint128> { Ok(bal.unwrap_or_default().checked_sub(amount)?) }, | ||
| )?; | ||
| STAKED_TOTAL.update( | ||
| deps.storage, | ||
| _env.block.height, | ||
| env.block.height, | ||
| |total| -> StdResult<Uint128> { Ok(total.unwrap_or_default().checked_sub(amount)?) }, | ||
| )?; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Think there may be a bug here :)
Setup
- Alice has one token staked
- Bob has one token staked
- The contract a two token balance
- The contract has a one day unstaking duration
Unstaking
- Alice unstakes her token
- Alice is entitled to 1 token (1 token unstaking / 2 staked tokens * 2 tokens in contract)
- There is now one token staked
- The contract has a balance of two tokens until 1 day passes and Alice can claim her token
- Bob sees that Alice has unstaked her token and also unstakes his
- Bob is entitled to 2 tokens (1 token unstaking / 1 staked tokens * 2 tokens in contract)
- There are now zero tokens staked
Claiming
- Alice claims her one token - success. Contract balance is now 1.
- Bob claims his two tokens - failure. The contract has one token remaining.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In the event that the contract does have the funds to cover Bob's withdrawal here Bob is taking money from the pool I believe :)
Could be entirely off base / not understanding something here though.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Great catch, this issue should be resolve. The contract now tracks its balance internally. When funding the contract the sender must use a cw20 send msg with a new message type fund
| amount: Uint128::new(100), | ||
| release_at: AtHeight(12349) | ||
| }] | ||
| ); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Awesome to have this as a test. Thanks!
contracts/stake-cw20/src/contract.rs
Outdated
| pub fn query_staked_value(deps: Deps, env: Env, address: String) -> StdResult<StakedValueResponse> { | ||
| let config = CONFIG.load(deps.storage)?; | ||
| let address = deps.api.addr_validate(&address)?; | ||
| let balance: cw20::BalanceResponse = deps.querier.query_wasm_smart( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Think we need to move to using BALANCE here as well
contracts/stake-cw20/src/contract.rs
Outdated
|
|
||
| pub fn query_total_value(deps: Deps, env: Env) -> StdResult<TotalValueResponse> { | ||
| let config = CONFIG.load(deps.storage)?; | ||
| let balance: cw20::BalanceResponse = deps.querier.query_wasm_smart( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
query_wasm_smart -> BALANCE :)
| let _env = mock_env(); | ||
| let amount = Uint128::new(100); | ||
| unstake_tokens(&mut app, &staking_addr, info, amount).unwrap(); | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Might be worthwhile to add a query here to make sure that ADDR2 has the appropriate staked value.
|
Great suggestions, all point should be resolved |
@ezekiiel have another look? |
Implementation to allow for auto-compounding staking rewards. Currently no test, but passes all existing tests so behavior is equivalent when not compounding.
Compouding will work by users being assigned an ownership percentage of the pool. If tokens are sent to the adress and not staked they are adding to the pools assets. When the user withdraws their funds they receive their share of the pool.
Math works as follows:
Stake Ownership = Staked Amount * (Total ownership / Contract Balance)
Unstaking Amount = (Ustaked Ownership / Total Ownership) * Contract Balance
Not feeling so well today, so my apologies if explanation is not great.