dTao-Compatible Subnet Deregistration#1685
Conversation
|
Currently the immunity period of the subnet's neurons is being called instead of the network immunity period, which you should be able to get with |
JohnReedV
changed the title
JohnReedV
added
the
skip-cargo-audit
JohnReedV
changed the title
pallets/swap/src/pallet/impls.rs
Outdated
| .sort_by(|a, b| (a.owner == protocol_account).cmp(&(b.owner == protocol_account))); | ||
|
|
||
| for CloseItem { owner, pos_id } in to_close.into_iter() { | ||
| let rm = Self::do_remove_liquidity(netuid, &owner, pos_id)?; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would it make sense to ignore errors here since we’re in the loop? If reserves are ideal, errors will not happen, but we had a few small discrepancies in the state so liquidity removals may fail for some (larger) accounts while they will succeed for smaller ones.
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // (netuid, locked_rao) pairs taken from the historical snapshot (block #4_828_623). | ||
| const SUBNET_LOCKED: &[(u16, u64)] = &[ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe I misunderstand the migration, but why again are we re-inserting lock costs into pre-DTAO subnets?
Their locked should be 0 because we have given them their lock cost already, so nothing to refund
6 participants
Description
dTao-Compatible Subnet Deregistration
Related Issue(s)
Type of Change