cmooney-20210430: Add note about skim()/thaw()#230
Conversation
| of ensuring this: | ||
|
|
||
| NOTE: In the event there's a system surplus, and there are no | ||
| under-collateralised vaults remaining, one must skim() large CDPs in order |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is it only large CDPs? Seems like if we need 0 surplus we need to skim all non-empty CDPs.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We shouldn't need to skim() everything, as we just need enough to collect fees get surplus to 0. The surplus cap means some of those fees are owed, but were sent off to surplus auctions. That is, surplus < all fees owed.
| @@ -148,6 +148,11 @@ interface SpotLike { | |||
| all auctions are in the reverse (`dent`) phase. There are two ways | |||
| of ensuring this: | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This line references two options on old line 151 and 158. The new comment seems to be wedged in the middle
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, I'd suggest moving the new paragraph right after - backing collateral taken
|
|
4 participants
This issue came up when running the cage-keeper in
kovan. The documentation needs to be more clear.