Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Inconsistent self-redeem logic #1089

Open
gregdhill opened this issue Jun 15, 2023 · 0 comments · May be fixed by #1107
Open

Inconsistent self-redeem logic #1089

gregdhill opened this issue Jun 15, 2023 · 0 comments · May be fixed by #1107
Assignees
@nakul1010
Labels
prio:medium

Comments

@gregdhill
Copy link
Member

Currently vaults do not pay fees on partial redeems due to the logic here. We have a dedicated self_redeem extrinsic that is only free of fees when redeeming the full capacity. The normal request_redeem protocol should also:

  • Pay no fees on redeeming 100% as a vault with your own vault so you have a chance to exit the system
  • Pay fees when not redeeming 100% of the BTC
@nud3l nud3l added this to Backlog Jun 15, 2023
@github-project-automation github-project-automation bot moved this to New 🆕 in Backlog Jun 15, 2023
@nud3l nud3l moved this from New 🆕 to Todo ⏳ in Backlog Jun 19, 2023
@nakul1010 nakul1010 self-assigned this Jun 26, 2023
@nakul1010 nakul1010 linked a pull request Jun 26, 2023 that will close this issue
Open
2 tasks
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@nakul1010 nakul1010

Labels
prio:medium
Projects
Backlog
Status: Todo ⏳
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

fix: Inconsistent self-redeem logic interlay/interbtc
2 participants
@gregdhill @nakul1010