Lm for lending #256
Lm for lending #256
Conversation
Lm claim and update
# Conflicts: # contracts/farm/LiquidityMining.sol # scripts/contractInteraction/mainnet_contracts.json # scripts/deployment/liquidity-mining/addETHPoolToken.py
| @@ -20,24 +20,16 @@ contract LoanTokenSettingsLowerAdmin is AdvancedToken { | |||
| /// ------------- MUST BE THE SAME AS IN LoanToken CONTRACT ------------------- | |||
| address public sovrynContractAddress; | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
you could (?) move all new variable declarations to AdvancedTokenStorage contract. without it you have to maintain storage compatibility manually, which is error-prone
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We don't need to maintain storage compatibility since LoanTokens (proxy contracts) were already deployed and we need to add variables only to LoanTokenSettingsLowerAdmin.
I prefer to leave as is for now.
| minted = _mintToken(receiver, depositAmount); | ||
|
|
||
| //transfer the tokens from the receiver to the LM address | ||
| _internalTransferFrom(receiver, liquidityMiningAddress, minted, minted); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
_internalTransferFrom is very "internal" function and should be used sparingly. To avoid it, one can mint tokens to the contract itself and then transfer them via erc20.transfer
With this change the token flow during mint operation would be the reverse of the one during burn
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not sure we need to change it.
@ororopickpocket what do you think?
# Conflicts: # scripts/contractInteraction/contract_interaction.py # scripts/contractInteraction/mainnet_contracts.json # scripts/contractInteraction/testnet_contracts.json
# Conflicts: # contracts/connectors/loantoken/LoanTokenLogicStandard.sol # scripts/contractInteraction/contract_interaction.py
No description provided.