[VAULTS] Revamp Delegation (for the last time) #1011
Closed
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
![github-advanced-security[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/57789?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
|
Hardhat Unit Tests Coverage SummaryDiff against masterResults for commit: 7f91994 Minimum allowed coverage is ♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results |
failingtwice
commented
Apr 9, 2025
| /** | ||
| * @notice Returns the roles that can: | ||
| * - change the confirm expiry; | ||
| * - set the curator fee; |
tamtamchik
approved these changes
Apr 9, 2025
Comment on lines
+77
to
+78
| emit VaultCreated(address(dashboard), address(vault)); | ||
| emit DashboardCreated(_defaultAdmin, address(dashboard)); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💭 maybe move the contract address to the first place; it looks confusing when admin comes first, or is this a common scenario for creation events?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, makes sense. We can also combine the two events into one, since they don't emit separately.
| uint256 private constant TOTAL_BASIS_POINTS = 100_00; | ||
|
|
||
| /** | ||
| * @notice Maximum fee value; equals to 100.00%. | ||
| */ | ||
| uint256 private constant MAX_FEE_BP = TOTAL_BASIS_POINTS; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🤔 why do we need separate private const? maybe use TOTAL_BASIS_POINTS instead?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, it's arguable but they are semantically different. One is used for fee calculations, the other to revert when new fee is over 100%. Idk, just reads better in code but not a strong preference
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For me, the issue lies in usage. MAX_FEE_BP suggests it could be less than or greater than 100%, yet the error states it is always 100%
| import {Dashboard} from "./Dashboard.sol"; | ||
| import {IStakingVault} from "../interfaces/IStakingVault.sol"; | ||
| import {Permissions} from "./Permissions.sol"; | ||
| import {VaultHub} from "../VaultHub.sol"; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| import {VaultHub} from "../VaultHub.sol"; |
unused
| * @notice Maximum combined feeBP value; equals to 100%. | ||
| * @notice Total basis points; 1bp = 0.01%, 100_00bp = 100.00%. | ||
| */ | ||
| uint256 private constant TOTAL_BASIS_POINTS = 100_00; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| uint256 private constant TOTAL_BASIS_POINTS = 100_00; | |
| uint256 internal constant TOTAL_BASIS_POINTS = 100_00; |
So can it can be used in UXLayer without definition there?
| * @notice This contract is a UX-layer for StakingVault and meant to be used as its owner. | ||
| * This contract improves the vault UX by bundling all functions from the StakingVault and VaultHub | ||
| * in this single contract. It provides administrative functions for managing the StakingVault, | ||
| * including funding, withdrawing, minting, burning, and rebalancing operations. | ||
| */ | ||
| contract Dashboard is Permissions { | ||
| abstract contract UXLayer is NodeOperatorFee { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
TOTAL_BASIS_POINTS may be taken from NodeOperatorFee
| @@ -508,15 +492,28 @@ contract Dashboard is Permissions { | |||
| revert InvalidPermit(token); | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| /** | |||
| function _mintableValuation() internal view returns (uint256) { | |||
| return stakingVault().valuation() - nodeOperatorUnclaimedFee(); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| function _mintSharesWithinMintableValuation(address _recipient, uint256 _amountOfShares) internal { |
TheDZhon
reviewed
Apr 9, 2025
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I like this PR conceptually, the things that are not in sync yet:
- latest PDG changes and shortcut accounting change
- new permissions due to the authorize/deauthorize base fns
- merge conflicts 🤒
Seems we might not need Dashboard contract though and can have it merged with UXLayer, but not sure
to have smth like:
Permissions ← NodeOperatorFee ← InitializableUtils ← UXLayer
| * @notice Creates a new StakingVault and Dashboard contracts | ||
| * @param _defaultAdmin The address of the default admin | ||
| * @param _nodeOperator The address of the node operator | ||
| * @param _extraParams The params of vault creation |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| * @param _extraParams The params of vault creation |
dup (see below)
| return IStakingVault(_loadStakingVaultAddress()); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| function vaultHub() public view override returns (VaultHub) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| function vaultHub() public view override returns (VaultHub) { | |
| function vaultHub() public view override returns (IVaultHub) { |
| error AlreadyInitialized(); | ||
|
|
||
| /** | ||
| * @dev Error emitted when the contract is called as a proxy. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| * @dev Error emitted when the contract is called as a proxy. | |
| * @dev Error emitted when the contract is called not through a proxy. |
| * It reserves a portion of the staking rewards for the node operator, and allows | ||
| * the node operator to claim their fee. | ||
| * | ||
| * Key features: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
and negotiation sidecar for the fee adjustment (e.g. PDG unguaranteed deposits)
| /** | ||
| * @notice Returns the address of the VaultHub | ||
| */ | ||
| function vaultHub() public view virtual returns (VaultHub); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| function vaultHub() public view virtual returns (VaultHub); | |
| function vaultHub() public view virtual returns (IVaultHub); |
|
Closed in favor of #1031 |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR proposes a revamp Delegation contract.
Context
Delegation provides reward share accounting for node operator
Problem
The old Delegation is clunky and poorly designed
Solution
Change inheritance structure, refactor and improve