WIP: unlendable deposits #907
Conversation
- for sanity, the liquidator likely must have lendable positions too - instruction for creating and closing an unlendable position - heaps of tests, rs client changes, ts client changes :/ Done: - when dealing with the vault, always keep unlendable_deposits in the vault (unless withdrawing a no-lending position) - no-lending positions can't work as settle token positions for perps
need to audit all uses still
| @@ -331,6 +332,14 @@ pub fn serum3_place_order( | |||
| )? | |||
| }; | |||
|
|
|||
| // Verify that the no-lending amount on the vault remains. If the acting account | |||
| // itself had a no-lending position, the unlendable_deposits has already been reduced. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this is a new constraint that needs to be factored into max-obv1-size
| // itself had a no-lending position, the unlendable_deposits has already been reduced. | ||
| require_gte!( | ||
| change.vault_balance, | ||
| bank.unlendable_deposits, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this is a constraint that needs to appear in max-swap?
| ctx.accounts | ||
| .vault | ||
| .amount | ||
| .saturating_sub(bank.unlendable_deposits), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ah this is scary, how can we avoid using vault amounts just as is in future
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I've pushed more changes to the ts side where it was using vaults
|
Should flash loaners be allowed to borrow unlendable deposits? |
technically yes, but we should just be conservative imo, or? |
| if position.allow_lending() { | ||
| assert!(position.unlendable_deposits == 0); | ||
| let opening_indexed_position = position.indexed_position; | ||
| let result = self.deposit_internal(position, native_amount, allow_dusting, now_ts)?; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would rename the deposit_internal method to make it explicit that it's only for "lendable position"
| if position.allow_lending() { | ||
| assert!(position.unlendable_deposits == 0); | ||
| let opening_indexed_position = position.indexed_position; | ||
| let res = self.withdraw_internal( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Same here, would rename withdraw_internal to a more explicit withdraw_indexed_pos_internal or withdraw_lendable_pos_internal
| MangoError::UnlendableTokenPositionCannotBeNegative | ||
| ); | ||
| position.unlendable_deposits -= withdraw_amount_u64; | ||
| self.unlendable_deposits -= withdraw_amount_u64; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should/could we also add a require_gte on the bank unlendable deposit vs withdrawn amount ?
TODO: