Skip to content

Pr/feesharingcollector v2 SIP-0088#574

Open
bribri-wci wants to merge 3 commits intoDistributedCollective:developmentfrom
bribri-wci:pr/feesharingcollector-v2
Open

Pr/feesharingcollector v2 SIP-0088#574
bribri-wci wants to merge 3 commits intoDistributedCollective:developmentfrom
bribri-wci:pr/feesharingcollector-v2

Conversation

@bribri-wci
Copy link

Revert FeeSharingCollector to pre-5429b56 version. Deployed FeeSharingCollector Proxy and Implementations here: 0xd16457C2495406783dECa731f90f6284D09eaFb1 and 0x5D539131c0eb5237753beB7a4d60A3Bb6ecdD96f.

@bribri-wci
Copy link
Author

@tjcloa Please review, thank you!

Copy link
Contributor

@tjcloa tjcloa left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

While the intent of this PR is to migrate to a new FeeSharingCollector proxy, it currently mixes two incompatible approaches: a pure rollback model (single active collector) and a real migration model (new proxy deployment).

The script deploys a new proxy and implementation (1021-deploy-FeeSharingCollectorV2.js:19), while the canonical deployment still points to the old proxy (FeeSharingCollector.json:2). At the same time, the canonical deployment is rolled back to a previous version. This breaks consistency between the currently active FeeSharingCollector deployment and the deployment metadata.

Effectively, the PR introduces two FeeSharingCollector contracts:

The current deployment (used by scripts and the Sovryn frontend), where user fees remain locked.
A rollback-version deployment that is intended to be switched into protocol usage, but is not supported by the Sovryn app or the scheduled action scripts.
As a result, this design requires coordinated frontend updates and additional testing so users can claim fees from both contracts while preventing cumulative side effects. Without that, many users are likely to lose access to fees in the orphaned FeeSharingCollector, because withdrawal from that contract may remain economically unprofitable.

If these changes are not introduced, the frontend will remain connected to the orphaned FeeSharingCollector, while the newly deployed contracts will require either a separate UI flow or manual direct contract interaction to withdraw fees.

Final conclusion: the solution proposed in this PR is strongly not recommended for acceptance in its current form, because it breaks consistency and introduces significant, unnecessary complexity for Sovryn app integration and long-term maintenance.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants