Conversation
| 2. preLCF1 <= preLCF2; | ||
| 3. WAD <= preLIF1 <= preLIF2. | ||
|
|
||
| Note that `preLCF1 <= WAD` and `preLCF1 <= WAD` is not mandatory. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| Note that `preLCF1 <= WAD` and `preLCF1 <= WAD` is not mandatory. | |
| Note that `preLCF1 <= WAD` and `preLCF2 <= WAD` is not mandatory. |
| The PreLiquidation smart-contract enforces: | ||
| 1. preLltv < LLTV; | ||
| 2. preLCF1 <= preLCF2; | ||
| 3. WAD <= preLIF1 <= preLIF2. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Note that this will create a silent merge conflict with #77
| 3. WAD <= preLIF1 <= preLIF2. | ||
|
|
||
| Note that `preLCF1 <= WAD` and `preLCF1 <= WAD` is not mandatory. | ||
| Indeed without this, the close factor can reach 100% when the position LTV is less than LLTV allowing additionnal pre-liquidation close factor configurations. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not sure that this sentence is really understandable as it is
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Agreed, what do you mean in this very context by "allowing additional pre-liquidation close factor configuration"? Do you want to say close factors that make no sense? that are not covered by this contract? that are not safe?
| oraclePrice = bound(oraclePrice, 1, ORACLE_PRICE_SCALE / 2); | ||
| OracleMock(preLiquidationParams.preLiquidationOracle).setPrice(oraclePrice); | ||
|
|
||
| uint256 collateralPrice = IOracle(preLiquidationParams.preLiquidationOracle).price(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| oraclePrice = bound(oraclePrice, 1, ORACLE_PRICE_SCALE / 2); | |
| OracleMock(preLiquidationParams.preLiquidationOracle).setPrice(oraclePrice); | |
| uint256 collateralPrice = IOracle(preLiquidationParams.preLiquidationOracle).price(); | |
| uint256 collateralPrice = bound(oraclePrice, 1, ORACLE_PRICE_SCALE / 2); | |
| oracle.setPrice(collateralPrice); |
| uint256 collateralPrice = IOracle(PRE_LIQUIDATION_ORACLE).price(); | ||
| uint256 collateralQuoted = uint256(position.collateral).mulDivDown(collateralPrice, ORACLE_PRICE_SCALE); | ||
|
|
||
| require(collateralQuoted > 0, ErrorsLib.UncollateralizedPosition()); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Remark that this corresponds to ltv = +infinity and that #77 already prevents ltv > LLTV.
I think that it's possible to do the check of #77 in a way that also prevents the division by zero that this PR prevents: check that borrowed <= LLTV.wMulDown(collateralQuoted).
This is because borrowed is rounded up so it is >= 1
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I really like your solution, wdyt @colin-morpho does it help for FV ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
See de168dd. So now there shouldn't be any division by zero
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think Quentin's suggestions is the right way to go!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Agree too, closing it then
gd-colin
left a comment
gd-colin
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Few comments to imporve the README, perhaps we should consider @QGarchery's porposition.
|
|
||
| ### Pre-liquidation parameters restrictions | ||
|
|
||
| The PreLiquidation smart-contract enforces: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| The PreLiquidation smart-contract enforces: | |
| The PreLiquidation smart-contract enforces the following properties. |
| 2. preLCF1 <= preLCF2; | ||
| 3. WAD <= preLIF1 <= preLIF2. | ||
|
|
||
| Note that `preLCF1 <= WAD` and `preLCF1 <= WAD` is not mandatory. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| Note that `preLCF1 <= WAD` and `preLCF1 <= WAD` is not mandatory. | |
| Note: it is not mandatory that `preLCF1 <= WAD` and `preLCF1 <= WAD` hold. |
|
Replaced by #77 |
|
Reopened for the changes on the readme, but we should remove the new require |
|
I'll just create another PR for the readme |
|
Should we close this PR then? |
|
replaced by #82 |
5 participants
collateralQuoted = 0to simplify FV (cfpreLiquidatemay revert unexpectedly #49)preLCF > WADin readme (cf PRE_CF_2 > WAD #52)