lqt: emit events in dex/funding #5065
Conversation
| // The amount of reward, in delegation tokens. | ||
| asset.v1.Value delegation_tokens = 3; | ||
| // The recipient of the reward | ||
| keys.v1.Address address = 4; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
just to clarify, appending the address is fine here because the reward comes from the community pool which mints transparently?
| num.v1.Amount position_volume = 11; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| message EventLqtVote { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
what about transaction ID? or does this create a link in the events for the vote, associating it with the transaction hash that performed the voting in the LiquidityTournamentReward?
| num.v1.Amount position_volume = 11; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| message EventLqtVote { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we should add the recipient address and the transaction id. Tx IDs would be a good way to track "unique votes" roughly.
| // Tracks the LQT eligible volume for a position. | ||
| // The volume corresponds to the outflow of staking tokens from | ||
| // the position. | ||
| message EventLqtPositionVolume { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is there a good way to link this to the execution of the dex? Like it could be nice to put in a bsod reference or something which would let us know whether or not it ties in to block execution or arb.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That's a good idea, agreed. I think we will have to switch things around. We can do this on a second pass. One way to do this is to emit the event on position_execution. It will take some workshopping to do this without disrupting the method.
Describe your changes
This PR adds events for the LQT tournament
Issue ticket number and link
#5066 #5067
Checklist before requesting a review
I have added guiding text to explain how a reviewer should test these changes.
If this code contains consensus-breaking changes, I have added the "consensus-breaking" label. Otherwise, I declare my belief that there are not consensus-breaking changes, for the following reason: