-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 22
BPT Oracles (supporting BPT as Collateral) #289
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
base: v3-outline
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.
|
joaobrunoah
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Just left a comment about Stable Pool oracles, but it looks great
| order: 4 | ||
| title: BPT Oracle Numerical Example | ||
| --- | ||
| # Numerical example |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This page is simply awesome!
This PR adds a page on BPT Oracles, specifically focusing on the BPT as Collateral use case. The main page introduces the concept, provides an overview of how the pricing is accomplished (focusing on stable pools as the most complex case, but also detailing the simpler algorithm employed by weighted pools), summarizes the derivation of the associated equations, and provides references: a developer guide for partners/builders, and Sergio's paper for the underlying mathematical concepts and proofs.
There is also a "contracts" page showing all the related contracts (along with an illustration of how they're related), and describing how to use them. (The main page is also referenced from the general BPT page.)
And finally, there's a page with a numerical example of a de-pegged stable pool, showing all steps involved in calculating its BPT price. This might be overkill? I needed to do that for my own understanding, but we don't typically do that in public docs. Maybe good for the auditors?
Closes #274