You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I think this check was supposed to check the shares left after withdrawal to stop you from being locked out as there is similar check in XYK if I remember correctly.
However, this won't prevent it as you can just send shares away. This means we can end up in a state where there is enough shares in a pool but there is not enough shares in anybody's account to actually withdraw anything. I think the solution to this is to tie the minimal pool balances/shares to existential deposit.
This should be viable thing after we implement #1007
However this number probably shouldn't change. I would consider setting it to the fallback values so we don't end up in the same situation.
I think this check was supposed to check the shares left after withdrawal to stop you from being locked out as there is similar check in XYK if I remember correctly.
However, this won't prevent it as you can just send shares away. This means we can end up in a state where there is enough shares in a pool but there is not enough shares in anybody's account to actually withdraw anything. I think the solution to this is to tie the minimal pool balances/shares to existential deposit.
This should be viable thing after we implement #1007
However this number probably shouldn't change. I would consider setting it to the fallback values so we don't end up in the same situation.
Originally posted by @jak-pan in #1003 (comment)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: