feat: stacks ft fiat values from alex-sdk

[fbwoolf]

Try out Leather build aa1f38b — Extension build, Test report, Storybook, Chromatic

This PR adds fiat balances for supported currencies from the alex-sdk. If no data is known, then the fiat balance will still show nothing. We should address hiding many of these airdropped tokens soon bc our asset list is getting quite long.

Also, I encountered some unnecessary code for the Fund page that I have refactored here.

[markmhendrickson]

It looks like we need to add these fiat values to the total account balance?

[markmhendrickson]

Also, only partially related, but how are we sorting tokens at the moment? I presume best to sort by total fiat value descending, then alphabetically ascending. cc @fabric-8

[pete-watters]

Nice work, this LGTM, I just added some suggestions but nothing critical

[fbwoolf]

It looks like we need to add these fiat values to the total account balance?

I don't think the intention was to add all to the total balance, was it? I believe it is just Bitcoin and Stacks in that total? I think that would be an enhancement issue?

[markmhendrickson]

I don't think the intention was to add all to the total balance, was it?

We can tackle in a separate issue / PR if preferred, though it seems like an expected enhancement to me if we show fiat per Stacks FT. Otherwise we'll have an incongruence.

[fbwoolf]

We can tackle in a separate issue / PR if preferred, though it seems like an expected enhancement to me if we show fiat per Stacks FT. Otherwise we'll have an incongruence.

I was more questioning, is that really what the total balance is supposed to mean? It isn't really set up in our code that way. Isn't that misleading when other tokens have value we just don't have market data for them? There will always be an incongruence unless we have market data for all the tokens we are showing?

[markmhendrickson]

I was more questioning, is that really what the total balance is supposed to mean?

Got it – perhaps @fabric-8 should chime in here. My sense is that it's best to optimistically include all known fiat values into the total account value, since it at least provides a floor value for the entire account.

If we detect there's one or missing fiat values, we could theoretically enhance this approach by indicating the total account value with a lower-range e.g. $120+ or >=$120 though I'm not sure it's necessary per se.

If I see a smaller account total than the sum of the token values as listed, it's just going to seem broken (esp. since here's no way to understand as a user why only BTC and STX are included?).

[fabric-8]

I generally agree with @markmhendrickson — If we display a fiat value for any given token, that value should also contribute to the total balance.

Regarding sorting: +1 for sorting by fiat value in descending order as a default

[kyranjamie]

Agree that the total should sum all known balances, but @fbwoolf is right the code isn't really set up well for this.

Suggest doing as a separate job, and rethinking the whole balance architecture.

[fbwoolf]

Suggest doing as a separate job, and rethinking the whole balance architecture.

Made a new issue here: #5159