fix(mintYieldFee): check for partial collateralization (c4-issue-435) #13
Conversation
| @@ -1,312 +1,313 @@ | |||
| TN: | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This shouldn't be committed
✂️
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The repo is not configured properly but we need to display the coverage in PRs: https://github.com/zgosalvez/github-actions-report-lcov
src/Vault.sol
Outdated
| _withdrawableAssets = _withdrawableAssets - (_withdrawableAssets - _totalSupplyToAssets); | ||
| // If the Vault is collateralized, yield is excluded from the withdrawable amount | ||
| // and users can only withdraw the amount of underlying assets they deposited. | ||
| // Otherwise, any unclaimed yield is included and shared proportionally amongst depositors. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This comment needs to be updated I think
The additional assets are not shared proportionally, AFAIK
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It is once the Vault is undercollateralized since _withdrawableAssets won't be equal to _depositedAssets, so any underlying assets withdrawable from the YieldVault will be available and the exchange will be computed using the following formula:
return _withdrawableAssets.mulDiv(_assetUnit, _totalSupplyAmount, Math.Rounding.Down);
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is a language thing; there is no yield if it's undercollateralized
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Fixed wording in this commit: 81fe36a
PierrickGT
force-pushed
the
gen-197-c4-issue-435-mintyieldfee-does-not-check-maxmint
branch
from
1017a67
to
8097392
Compare
fix(sponsor): remove receiver param
fixes c4 issue 353
revert if yield fee is set to 100%
PierrickGT
deleted the
gen-197-c4-issue-435-mintyieldfee-does-not-check-maxmint
branch
Issue: code-423n4/2023-07-pooltogether-findings#435