Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on May 1, 2024. It is now read-only.

Add support for tokens BNTY and MKR #5

Closed
tipsysquid opened this issue Apr 6, 2019 · 10 comments
Closed

Add support for tokens BNTY and MKR #5

tipsysquid opened this issue Apr 6, 2019 · 10 comments

Comments

@tipsysquid
Copy link

Summary
Seeking to add support for ERC20 tokens BNTY and MRK

Status
I followed the documentation and guides Request Smart Contracts Documentation and Adding support for a new currency

I have already deployed the contracts and verified their sources
RequestERC20-BNTY
RequestERC20-MKR

Follow up
As per the Contribution Guide, I am opening up this issue to begin discussions for these changes. Once satisfied, I will create a PR for this issue.

@AngeloAdam
Copy link

Hey guys any update on this?

@romaric-juniet
Copy link
Contributor

Hi, thanks for creating this issue. We haven't had time to make progress on this, we will do it end of this week or beginning of the next.
I had a quick look and noticed that the burner address points to the old one, the correct one is 0x7b3c4d90e8af6030d66c07f8f815f9505e379d6f. Do you remember where you took it from? There may be information to update somewhere

@AngeloAdam
Copy link

AngeloAdam commented Apr 17, 2019 via email

@tipsysquid
Copy link
Author

Hi @romaric-juniet ,
I may have made this issue against the incorrect repo.
I was using documentation for v1 and using v1 resources; however, I did not make this issue for v1.
Here is where I found the burner address that I used.

I'm happy to redeploy the contracts with the correct burner address.

Should I close this issue and re-open it under requestNetwork-v1-archive?

@AngeloAdam
Copy link

@romaric-juniet any update on this?

Thanks,

@vrolland
Copy link
Contributor

vrolland commented Apr 23, 2019

Hi Guys,

I am taking over the issue.

@tipsysquid
Thanks for the work done!

I was using the documentation for v1 and using v1 resources; however, I did not make this issue for v1. Here is where I found the burner address that I used.

It was confusing. I will try to make it more clear and clean the deploy file which is out of date.

I'm happy to redeploy the contracts with the correct burner address.

You don't need to redeploy the contract to change the burner address. You can use the function setRequestBurnerContract()
You will need to give us at some point the ownership of the contracts. You can wait for me to check everything first or go head using transferOwnership() with the request admin address 0x74ef019c1e9f11366c5c8dc4ab556c16fe13b51f

Should I close this issue and re-open it under requestNetwork-v1-archive?

Yep, It would be a good idea actually.

@AngeloAdam
I will start to check everything tomorrow. (SGT time)

Cheers,

@vrolland vrolland transferred this issue from RequestNetwork/requestNetwork Apr 24, 2019
@vrolland
Copy link
Contributor

HI Guys,

I have prepared the library to support the two tokens: #4

The next steps to close the issue are:

  1. Change the burner address @tipsysquid
  2. Transfer the ownership @tipsysquid
  3. Update the fees on the contracts @vrolland
  4. Autorized the contracts on the request core @vrolland
  5. Test creation and payments @vrolland
  6. Merge & Publish Library and Artifacts changes @vrolland
  7. Update the doc @vrolland
  8. Have a beer 🍺 (all - optional)

Cheers,

@tipsysquid
Copy link
Author

tipsysquid commented Apr 24, 2019

I have completed the following:

  • Change the burner addresses

  • Transfer ownership to Request Admin address 0x74ef019c1e9f11366c5c8dc4ab556c16fe13b51f

You can follow the transactions from the previous owner address here

Thanks for providing the guidelines @vrolland! 🚀

@vrolland
Copy link
Contributor

@AngeloAdam Can you contact me in private on the slack "request hub" please?

@vrolland
Copy link
Contributor

vrolland commented Apr 25, 2019

done #7 🍻

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants