Frax Convex Strategy with locked Frax Staked Convex LP tokens #1917

naddison36 · 2023-11-07T13:40:42Z

This PR extends PR #1846 which implemented a Convex Strategy. This PR adds a FraxConvexStrategy that supports locking Frax Staked Convex LP tokens.

There are multiple levels of tokens managed by this strategy

Vault assets. eg WETH and frxETH
Curve LP tokens. eg frxETH-ng-f
Convex LP tokens. eg cvxfrxeth-ng-f
Frax Staked Convex LP tokens. eg stkcvxfrxeth-ng-f-frax
Locked Frax Staked Convex LP tokens which do not have a LP token. eg FraxUnifiedFarm_ERC20_Convex_frxETH

Contracts

The new strategy is in green. Modified contracts are in orange.

Value Flows

Deposit and locking flows

Harvesting CRV, CVX and FXS token rewards

Tests

There are no unit tests for the FraxConvexStrategy as it has heavy integration to Frax Convex.
There is, however, a unit tests for ConvexTwoPoolStrategy which implements ConvexStrategy which implements BaseCurveStrategy. FraxConvexStrategy implements BaseCurveStrategy so there is some base unit test coverage.

yarn test ./test/strategies/convexFrxEthWeth.js

Fork tests

yarn test:fork ./test/strategies/frax-convex-weth.fork-test.js

Deploy

The contracts/deploy/082_frax_convex_strategy.js script will deploy the new strategy and propose the required governance actions.

Review

If you made a contract change, make sure to complete the checklist below before merging it in master.

Refer to our documentation for more details about contract security best practices.

Contract change checklist:

Code reviewed by 2 reviewers.
Copy & paste code review security checklist below this checklist.
Unit tests pass
Slither tests pass with no warning
Echidna tests pass if PR includes changes to OUSD contract (not automated, run manually on local)

github-actions · 2023-11-07T13:41:22Z

	Warnings
⚠️	👀 This PR needs at least 2 reviewers

Generated by 🚫 dangerJS against 826735c

codecov · 2023-11-07T22:22:32Z

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

❗ No coverage uploaded for pull request base (nicka/convex-frxeth-weth-libs@d65c9c5). Click here to learn what that means.

Additional details and impacted files

@@                       Coverage Diff                        @@
##             nicka/convex-frxeth-weth-libs    #1917   +/-   ##
================================================================
  Coverage                                 ?   74.09%           
================================================================
  Files                                    ?       61           
  Lines                                    ?     3015           
  Branches                                 ?      781           
================================================================
  Hits                                     ?     2234           
  Misses                                   ?      778           
  Partials                                 ?        3

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

…nto nicka/convex-frax-locking

DanielVF · 2023-11-08T16:21:42Z

It's possible we could make this far simpler.

Let's say that we have an internal method _adjustLockup that tries to match the pendingWithdraws and the currently available funds. If it has too much, it locks it up, if it has too little, and it can, it pulls back out of the lockup. We set pendingWithdraws from the strategist, directly on the contract before we want to withdraw. When _adjustLockup unlocks funds, it reduces pendingWithdraws.

_lpDepositAll:
 - _adjustLockup()

_lpWithdrawAll:
  - set pendingWithdraws to all tokens locked balance
  - _adjustLockup()
  - use whatever LP tokens we were able to get.

_lpWithdraw:
  - _adjustLockup()
  -  revert if we don't have enough unlocked funds

setPendingWithdraw(amount) external admins:
  - set pendingWithdraws to amount

This means that all our locking/unlocking logic now lives in one function, and rather than having four methods that have to do separate logic and calls about funds into and out of locking.

notion-workspace · 2023-11-09T00:27:13Z

New strategy contract with Locked Frax Staked Convex

Added fraxConvexWethFixture Added fxs to default fixture Added fork tests for FraxConvex strategy using the frxETH/WETH Curve pool

…nto nicka/convex-frax-locking

naddison36 · 2023-11-09T11:44:12Z

It's possible we could make this far simpler.

Let's say that we have an internal method _adjustLockup that tries to match the pendingWithdraws and the currently available funds. If it has too much, it locks it up, if it has too little, and it can, it pulls back out of the lockup. We set pendingWithdraws from the strategist, directly on the contract before we want to withdraw. When _adjustLockup unlocks funds, it reduces pendingWithdraws.
_lpDepositAll:
 - _adjustLockup()

_lpWithdrawAll:
  - set pendingWithdraws to all tokens locked balance
  - _adjustLockup()
  - use whatever LP tokens we were able to get.

_lpWithdraw:
  - _adjustLockup()
  -  revert if we don't have enough unlocked funds

setPendingWithdraw(amount) external admins:
  - set pendingWithdraws to amount
This means that all our locking/unlocking logic now lives in one function, and rather than having four methods that have to do separate logic and calls about funds into and out of locking.

I like this approach. It can also work for the function that rolls the lock.

I got the basic fork tests working today. I'll work on cleaning things up tomorrow and more testing

DanielVF · 2023-11-09T12:54:55Z

Yeah, it should do the lock rolling as well.

One thing I said incorrectly was that unlocking should reduce the pendingWithdraws - it should actually be withdrawing that does that, since otherwise the funds would get locked up again on the next invocation.

naddison36 · 2023-11-10T09:15:31Z

I've refactored the FraxConvexStrategy contract today. I was originally using pendingWithdraws to fit with ERC-7540 but its simpler to have a targetLockedBalance set by the Strategist. This allows the strategy to lock a specified amount of Frax Staked Convex LP tokens and hold the rest as unlocked.

There are multiple levels of tokens managed by this strategy:

Vault assets. eg WETH and frxETH
Curve LP tokens. eg frxETH-ng-f
Convex LP tokens. eg cvxfrxeth-ng-f
Frax Staked Convex LP tokens. eg stkcvxfrxeth-ng-f-frax
Locked Frax Staked Convex LP tokens which do not have a LP token

Note there are no partial withdrawals of expired locked tokens so full withdraws of expired tokens are done before locking more.

Below is what the high level design now looks like

storage variables:
  - lockKey
  - unlockTimestamp
  - targetLockedBalance

_unlock(lockedBalance):
  - if (there is a lock and
        the lock has expired and
        the lockedBalance > targetLockedBalance)
    - withdraw all tokens from the lock
    - reset lockKey
    - return the unlockedAmount

_lock(unlockedBalance, lockedBalance):
  - If targetLockedBalance > lockedBalance
    - calc lockAmount = min(unlockedBalance, targetLockAmount < unlockedBalance)
    - if lockAmount < MIN_LOCK_AMOUNT return
    - if no lock
      - create new lock for 7 days
      - set lockKey and unlockTimestamp
    - else 
      - add to existing lock 
      - extent existing lock by 7 days

_lpDepositAll:
  - Stake Curve LPs
  - unlock(lockedBalance)
  - lock(unlockedBalance, lockedBalance)

_lpWithdrawAll:
  - set targetLockedBalance = 0
  - unlock(lockedBalance)
  - Unstake all Curve LPs

_lpWithdraw:
  - revert if not enough unlocked tokens or
      not enough unlocked + expired tokens
  - unlock(lockedBalance)
  - Unstake required Curve LPs
  - lock(unlockedBalance, lockedBalance)

- extendLock:
  - unlock(lockedBalance)
  - lock(unlockedBalance, lockedBalance)  

setTargetLockedBalance(balance) external onlyStrategist:
  - set targetLockedBalance

I'm now working on the required permutation for the fork tests

contracts/contracts/strategies/FraxConvexStrategy.sol

Lock event emitted if only time was added. The amount is zero. Small gas optimization to updateLock to avoid second SLOAD

…nicka/convex-frax-locking

contracts/contracts/strategies/FraxConvexStrategy.sol

pandadefi · 2024-01-10T10:22:39Z

contracts/contracts/strategies/FraxConvexStrategy.sol

+        if (lockedBalance < targetLockedBalanceMem) {
+            // Calculate the amount of Frax Staked Convex LP tokens to lock.
+            // The target lock balance ignoring the unlocked balance
+            uint256 targetLockAmount = targetLockedBalanceMem - lockedBalance;


Can use unchecked

The only part of the strategies that is gas critical is the balance checking (since it's used in every rebase). The rest of the strategy code is used only a few times a week, and I'd rather stay out of super gas optimizations in them, and lean towards safety.

pandadefi · 2024-01-10T10:23:41Z

contracts/contracts/strategies/FraxConvexStrategy.sol

+     * This will revert if there is not enough FXS rewards in the
+     * Frax Convex Locking contract. See dev note in contract Natspec for more details.
+     */
+    function _lpWithdrawAll() internal override {


The withdrawAll() strategy might encounter failure if the withdrawLocked() function from IFraxConvexLocking reverts due to a paused withdrawal. This issue can block the withdrawal and unwrapping of funds that are not locked, subsequently preventing their transfer back to the vault.

this is a good point. I think it makes sense to wrap the _unlock in _lpWithdrawAll in a try catch so the unlocked LP tokens can still be withdrawn.

pandadefi · 2024-01-10T10:29:12Z

contracts/contracts/strategies/FraxConvexStrategy.sol

+     * @return balance    Total value of the asset in the platform
+     */
+    function checkBalance(address _asset)
+        public


The function can be set to external.

Is it still the case you get a gas saving for declaring a function external? Especially for a view function.

When I changed checkBalance on FraxConvexStrategy to external I didn't see a gas saving from when it was public.

Doing some quick testing in Remix with the following also shows no gas difference between the functions being declared external or public. What am I missing?

// SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT pragma solidity ^0.8.0; contract ExternalFuncs { address asset = 0xC02aaA39b223FE8D0A0e5C4F27eAD9083C756Cc2; uint256 balance = 1e18; function checkBalance(address _asset) public view returns (uint256) { require(_asset == asset, "invalid asset"); return balance; } function updateAsset(address _asset) public { asset = _asset; } }

Gas savings are no longer available; the purpose is now solely for clarity.

I've put this in PR #1976

pandadefi · 2024-01-10T14:46:25Z

What is the rationale behind the 7-day lock period?
Looking at the FraxUnifiedFarm contract, a week-long lock will only increase the _combined_weights by 0.6%.

Edit:
Locking funds is necessary to earn rewards. However, even a maximum lock of 3 years only enhances the combined_weight by 100%, indicating a relatively modest benefit for such a prolonged lock-in period.

pandadefi · 2024-01-11T09:00:02Z

contracts/contracts/strategies/FraxConvexStrategy.sol

+        nonReentrant
+    {
+        // Collect CRV, CVX and FXS rewards from staking contract
+        IFraxConvexStaking(fraxStaking).getReward(address(this));


The getReward() function can be invoked using the harvester address, allowing for a reduction in three transfers (CRV, CVX, FXS) for both the fraxStaking and fraxLocking contracts.

interesting, so Frax allow rewards to be delegated. In that case, the strategy can delegate rewards to the Harvester.

This requires a change to the Harvester which would be out of scope for this deployment. I'll add this Harvester feature request to the backlog

pandadefi · 2024-01-11T16:37:05Z

contracts/contracts/strategies/FraxConvexStrategy.sol

+        uint256 targetLockedBalanceMem = targetLockedBalance;
+
+        // Do not extend lock time or add funds if already over the target locked balance
+        if (lockedBalance > targetLockedBalanceMem) {


There is an extreme side case when targetLockedBalanceMem and lockedBalance are both zero, it should probably return on line 204 too. Adding a || targetLockedBalanceMem == 0 will do.

This is a valid case - especially after withdrawAll.

Since there are no locks and the lock amount is zero, _lock will exit on line 226. But I like your suggestion of returning earlier by checking if the target locked balance is zero.

I'll add to a PR

Raised PR #1975 for this.

Edit Domen: now replaced by #1976 PR

* Added Balancer deposit Update Convex AMO harvest Added Balancer harvest * Updated Convex AMO and Balancer harvests value flows Updated buyback value flows * Added vote locked CVX to buyback

naddison36 · 2024-01-15T10:35:31Z

What is the rationale behind the 7-day lock period? Looking at the FraxUnifiedFarm contract, a week-long lock will only increase the _combined_weights by 0.6%.

Edit: Locking funds is necessary to earn rewards. However, even a maximum lock of 3 years only enhances the combined_weight by 100%, indicating a relatively modest benefit for such a prolonged lock-in period.

More analysis is needed on how long the lock should be for.

…ocking

pandadefi · 2024-01-15T15:28:57Z

What is the rationale behind the 7-day lock period? Looking at the FraxUnifiedFarm contract, a week-long lock will only increase the _combined_weights by 0.6%.
Edit: Locking funds is necessary to earn rewards. However, even a maximum lock of 3 years only enhances the combined_weight by 100%, indicating a relatively modest benefit for such a prolonged lock-in period.

More analysis is needed on how long the lock should be for.

You could probably create multiple strategies with different durations.

* Fix some tests * Fix some more * A couple more fixes * Fix balanced metapool fixture * Fix collateral swaps

…ocking

* Added extra fork test to measure Frax Convex strategy's checkBalance gas usage * exit _lock function earlier if target and locked balances are both zero * Changed checkBalance on FraxConvexStrategy to external to make it clear it is not used internally.

* N-01 added indexed to Lock and Unlock events * Restore prettier format

…ocking

sparrowDom · 2024-01-18T14:09:06Z

contracts/contracts/strategies/ThreePoolStrategy.sol

@@ -143,7 +143,7 @@ contract ThreePoolStrategy is BaseCurveStrategy, CurveThreeCoinFunctions {
    }

    /**
-     * @dev Collect accumulated CRV and send to Vault.
+     * @dev Collect accumulated CRV rewards and send to the Harvester.


thanks for catching these mistakes 👍

sparrowDom

Internal Code Review
[This is not yet a complete review - still need to check the tests]

Deployment Considerations

creates a new price feed
updates the OracleRouter with the new price feed
sets new OracleRouter as new OETHVault price provider
deploys a new strategy proxy
deploys a new strategy implementation
adds Uniswap config to sell FXS to the Harvester. Correct 1% FXS / ETH pool is configured
🟢 all above steps are correct and expected

Attack
This will never be a default strategy so the attacks to look for would be pool manipulating ones. And as long as we use vaultValue checker with strategist moves that check the expected values (inflated checkBalance would be noticed) manipulations shouldn't be possible

Logic
🟢 Are there bugs in the logic?
🟢 Correct usage of global & local variables. -> they might differentiate only by an underscore that can be overlooked (e.g. address vs _address).
🟢 Do public/external functions having asset parameter verify the asset is supported (where applicable)

Tests
🟢 Each publicly callable method has a test
🟢 Each logical branch has a test
🟢 Each require() has a test
🟢 Edge conditions are tested
🟢 If tests interact with AMM make sure enough edge cases (pool tilts) are tested. Ideally with fuzzing.

Flavor
🟢 Could this code be simpler?
🟢 Could this code be less vulnerable to other code behaving weirdly?

Overflow
🟢 Never use "+" or "-", always use safe math or have contract compile in solidity version > 0.8
~~Check that all for loops use uint256~~

Proxy
🟢 Make sure proxy implementation contracts don't initialize variable state on variable declaration and do it rather in initialize function.

Black magic
🟢 Does not contain selfdestruct
🟢 Does not use delegatecall outside of proxying
(If an implementation contract were to call delegatecall under attacker control, it could call selfdestruct the implementation contract, leading to calls through the proxy silently succeeding, even though they were failing.)
~~Address.isContract should be treated as if could return anything at any time, because that's reality.~~

Dependencies
🟢 Review any new contract dependencies thoroughly (e.g. OpenZeppelin imports) when new dependencies are added or version of dependencies changes.
~~If OpenZeppelin ACL roles are use review & enumerate all of them.~~
Check OpenZeppelin security vulnerabilities and see if any apply to current PR considering the version of OpenZeppelin contract used.

Deploy
🟢 Check that any deployer permissions are removed after deploy
Authentication
🟢 Never use tx.origin
🟢 Check that every external/public function should actually be external
🟢 Check that every external/public function has the correct authentication

Cryptographic code
~~Contracts that roll their own crypto are terrifying~~
~~Note that a failed signature check will result in a 0x00 result. Make sure that the result throws if it returns this.~~
~~ Beware of signed data being used in a replay attack to other contracts.~~

Gas problems
Contracts with for loops must have either:
~~A way to remove items~~
🟢Can be upgraded to get unstuck
~~Size can only controlled by admins~~
🟢 Contracts with for loops must not allow end users to add unlimited items to a loop that is used by others or admins.

External calls
🟢 Contract addresses passed in are validated
⚪ No unsafe external calls
🟠 Reentrancy guards on all state changing functions
🟢 Still doesn't protect against external contracts changing the state of the world if they are called.

Malicious behaviors
🟢 Could fail from stack depth problems (low level calls must require success)
🟢 No slippage attacks (we need to validate expected tokens received)

Oracles, one of:
No oracles
⚪ Oracles can't be bent
⚪ If oracle can be bent, it won't hurt us.
🟢 Don't call balanceOf for external contracts to determine what they will do, when they instead use internal accounting?
Ethereum
🟢 Contract does not send or receive Ethereum.
🟢 Contract has no payable methods.

sparrowDom · 2024-01-18T14:55:01Z

contracts/contracts/strategies/FraxConvexStrategy.sol

+     * @param _pTokens Address of the Curve pool for each asset.
+     */
+    function initialize(
+        address[] calldata _rewardTokenAddresses, // CRV + CVX + FXS


just a mental note. We never update these properties in the initialiser. Even if we needed them to we could withdrawAll from the strategy and deploy a new one.

It is worth considering altering InitializableAbstractStrategy and making all the configuration immutable. That will yield some nice gas savings not only within the strategy, but also rebase and allocation calls

Have created a discussion point on the next contract sync.

sparrowDom · 2024-01-19T11:58:50Z

contracts/contracts/strategies/FraxConvexStrategy.sol

+        address[] calldata _assets,
+        address[] calldata _pTokens
+    ) external onlyGovernor initializer {
+        require(


nit: we could use custom error here

also maybe add a comment:
currently all the assets in the curve pool need to be supported. Otherwise checkBalance would return incorrect results

sparrowDom · 2024-01-19T11:59:14Z

contracts/contracts/strategies/FraxConvexStrategy.sol

+     * @dev Verifies that the caller is the Strategist.
+     */
+    modifier onlyStrategist() {
+        require(


nit: custom error.

sparrowDom · 2024-01-19T12:01:21Z

contracts/contracts/strategies/FraxConvexStrategy.sol

+        lockKey = NO_KEY;
+
+        // This strategy only supports assets with the same number of decimals
+        require(decimals0 == decimals1, "Decimals do not match");


nit: this check would fit better in the constructor rather than the initialiser, since all the data for it is already present there.

Also we could use a custom error

sparrowDom · 2024-01-19T12:02:03Z

contracts/contracts/strategies/FraxConvexStrategy.sol

+        // This strategy only supports assets with the same number of decimals
+        require(decimals0 == decimals1, "Decimals do not match");
+        if (CURVE_POOL_ASSETS_COUNT == 3) {
+            require(decimals1 == decimals2, "Decimals do not match");


This check also fits better in the constructor and also could use a custom error

sparrowDom · 2024-01-20T00:43:38Z

contracts/contracts/strategies/FraxConvexStrategy.sol

+            // If no new lock is required
+            if (lockAmount == 0) {
+                // exit early so the unlockTimestamp is not updated or Lock event emitted
+                return;


Wouldn't this line of code only happen when there some targetLockedBalance exits but the unlockedBalance == 0 while no active lock exists? Meaning the contract has no balance at all to lock up. That seems more like an erroneous state to me than a legitimate one, and maybe it'd be better to throw an Error?

sparrowDom · 2024-01-20T00:49:05Z

contracts/contracts/strategies/FraxConvexStrategy.sol

+        override
+        returns (uint256 balance)
+    {
+        require(_curveSupportedCoin(_asset), "Unsupported asset");


nit: could use custom error

sparrowDom · 2024-01-20T00:52:18Z

contracts/contracts/strategies/FraxConvexStrategy.sol

+            // get_virtual_price is gas intensive, so only call it if we have LP tokens.
+            // Convert the Curve LP tokens controlled by this strategy to a value in USD or ETH
+            uint256 value = (curveLpTokens *
+                ICurvePool(CURVE_POOL).get_virtual_price()) /


Curious about this... This will never be a default strategy so such attack is not feasible. But if it were, is the virtual price susceptible to read-only re-entrancy if the underlying pool has ETH?

sparrowDom · 2024-01-20T00:54:02Z

contracts/test/_hot-deploy.js

@@ -79,6 +79,24 @@ async function constructNewContract(fixture, implContractName) {
          addresses.mainnet.WETH,
        ],
      ];
+    } else if (implContractName === "FraxConvexStrategy") {


great to see hot deploys are being used!

sparrowDom · 2024-01-20T01:10:25Z

contracts/contracts/strategies/FraxConvexStrategy.sol

+     * This will revert if there is not enough FXS rewards in the
+     * Frax Convex Locking contract. See dev note in contract Natspec for more details.
+     */
+    function updateLock() external {


maybe it sounds a bit paranoid, but I would add nonReentrant here

sparrowDom · 2024-01-29T00:03:46Z

This PR #1981 fixes a test that had to be skipped

sparrowDom

Really amazing test coverage of the convex frax strategy 💪

nit: There are so many different cases of locked, unlocked, staked, target locked amount variations it might be helpful to add a legend in the comments of the various cases covered.

sparrowDom · 2024-01-26T22:43:55Z

contracts/test/strategies/frax-convex-weth.fork-test.js

+          wethBalanceExpected,
+          0.01 // 0.01% or 1 basis point
+        );
+        // Check the frxETH balances in the Curve pool has no gone up


nit: update comment. In case of depositing frxETH it does go up

sparrowDom · 2024-01-26T22:54:41Z

contracts/test/strategies/frax-convex-weth.fork-test.js

+        const withdrawAmount = "1000";
+        const withdrawAmountScaled = parseUnits(withdrawAmount);
+        const expectedLpAmount =
+          await fraxConvexWethStrategy.calcWithdrawLpAmount(


A potential error in this contract function would also result in an incorrect expectedLpAmount. I guess this should be fine as long as the correctness of calcWithdrawLpAmount is tested somewhere else.

sparrowDom · 2024-01-26T22:59:13Z

contracts/test/strategies/frax-convex-weth.fork-test.js

+      fraxConvexLockedWeth,
+    } = fixture;
+
+    // Get the ETH and OETH balances in the Curve Metapool


nit: comment

sparrowDom · 2024-01-26T23:01:10Z

contracts/test/strategies/frax-convex-weth.fork-test.js

+  };
+
+  // Calculate the WETH and frxETH amounts from a withdrawAll
+  async function calcWithdrawAllAmounts() {


This tests the withhdrawAll once funds are deployed on the mainnet. The fork doesn't itself deploy any funds into it

sparrowDom · 2024-01-26T23:01:48Z

contracts/test/strategies/frax-convex-weth.fork-test.js

+    const wethWithdrawAmount = curveBalances[0]
+      .mul(strategyLpAmount)
+      .div(totalLpSupply);
+    // frxETH to burn = frxETH pool balance * strategy LP amount / total pool LP amount


nit: frxEth to withdraw

sparrowDom · 2024-01-29T15:18:24Z

contracts/test/strategies/frax-convex-weth.fork-test.js

+          )
+        ).to.equal(0);
+        expect(await fraxConvexWethStrategy.lockKey()).to.equal(ONE_BYTES32);
+        expect(await fraxConvexWethStrategy.unlockTimestamp()).to.equal(0);


above 3 lines will probably fail when mainnet state will have some locked amounts in the strategy.

A clean / empty strategy would probably require a fixture that waits for the lock period and then calls withdrawAll on the strategy to empty it.

The fixture config might require something like cleanup: false/true aside from depositToStrategy: false that would:

wait for the duration of lockedPeriod

harvest the rewards

withdraw all the funds

sparrowDom · 2024-01-29T19:38:26Z

contracts/test/strategies/frax-convex-weth.fork-test.js

+
+            const unlockTimestampBefore =
+              await fraxConvexWethStrategy.unlockTimestamp();
+


nit: should we explicitly make the node pass some time, to express that current node's timestamp is greater than the locked timestamp

sparrowDom · 2024-01-29T19:43:28Z

contracts/test/strategies/frax-convex-weth.fork-test.js

+              .to.emit(fraxConvexWethStrategy, "Lock")
+              .withNamedArgs({ amount: 0 });
+          });
+          it("should deposit amount", async () => {


I think another test here would be useful that shows that updating the lock after depositing the funds does result in increased locked amount. We could test for when:

deposited amount + existing locked balance < target locked balance

and: deposited amount + existing locked balance > target locked balance

And see that in both cases the expected amounts are locked

aha nvm you covered this with test cases below

sparrowDom · 2024-01-29T19:57:06Z

contracts/test/strategies/frax-convex-weth.fork-test.js

+            // add to staked amount
+            // no change to locked amounts
+            await assertDeposit(parseUnits("333.33"), {
+              unlockTimestamp: unlockTimestampBefore,


we could check that lockedBalance matches unexpiredAmount.add(stakedAmount).add(parseUnits("333.33")

sparrowDom · 2024-01-29T19:57:19Z

contracts/test/strategies/frax-convex-weth.fork-test.js

+            // add to staked amount
+            // no change to locked amounts
+            await assertDepositAll(parseUnits("0.001"), {
+              unlockTimestamp: unlockTimestampBefore,


could check for amounts here as well

DanielVF · 2024-05-08T17:41:27Z

Closing this PR because we are moving to Simplified OETH, without other LSTs as backing assets.

naddison36 added 2 commits November 7, 2023 21:02

Fix Natspec of old Convex and ThreePool strategies

b92b96e

WIP ConvexFraxLockingStrategy

31aa809

rafaelugolini temporarily deployed to preview-ousd-nicka-conv-3tiaoj November 7, 2023 13:41 Inactive

naddison36 changed the title ~~Locking of Frax staked Convex LP tokens~~ WIP Locking of Frax staked Convex LP tokens Nov 7, 2023

naddison36 self-assigned this Nov 7, 2023

naddison36 added the OETH OETH related things label Nov 7, 2023

naddison36 changed the base branch from nicka/amo-frxeth to nicka/convex-frxeth-weth-libs November 7, 2023 14:05

Locked Frax Staked Convex deploy script

339d415

rafaelugolini temporarily deployed to preview-ousd-nicka-conv-3tiaoj November 7, 2023 22:16 Inactive

Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/nicka/convex-frxeth-weth-libs' i…

c7b71dc

…nto nicka/convex-frax-locking

rafaelugolini temporarily deployed to preview-ousd-nicka-conv-3tiaoj November 8, 2023 08:29 Inactive

naddison36 added 3 commits November 9, 2023 16:16

Fix findBalancesSlot for FXS

185bd20

Added FraxConvexStrategy to hot deploy

6eb4817

removed Balancer vault, wstETH and Curve frxETH/WETH from WhaleAddresses

cd60c74

Added fraxConvexWethFixture Added fxs to default fixture Added fork tests for FraxConvex strategy using the frxETH/WETH Curve pool

rafaelugolini temporarily deployed to preview-ousd-nicka-conv-3tiaoj November 9, 2023 10:19 Inactive

Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/nicka/convex-frxeth-weth-libs' i…

2f29886

…nto nicka/convex-frax-locking

rafaelugolini temporarily deployed to preview-ousd-nicka-conv-3tiaoj November 9, 2023 11:19 Inactive

Refactor of FraxConvexStrategy

48625da

rafaelugolini temporarily deployed to preview-ousd-nicka-conv-3tiaoj November 10, 2023 07:44 Inactive

naddison36 added 2 commits November 10, 2023 19:30

Fix lint and slither

e8e0806

Generated new contract diagrams

02e986a

rafaelugolini temporarily deployed to preview-ousd-nicka-conv-3tiaoj November 10, 2023 08:34 Inactive

naddison36 added the contracts Works related to contracts label Nov 10, 2023

DanielVF reviewed Dec 6, 2023

View reviewed changes

contracts/contracts/strategies/FraxConvexStrategy.sol Show resolved Hide resolved

naddison36 added 3 commits December 7, 2023 15:28

Removed MIN_LOCK_AMOUNT

3c5fd03

Lock event emitted if only time was added. The amount is zero. Small gas optimization to updateLock to avoid second SLOAD

Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/nicka/convex-frax-locking' into …

ff38071

…nicka/convex-frax-locking

Generated new contract diagrams

883b06b

DanielVF reviewed Dec 7, 2023

View reviewed changes

contracts/contracts/strategies/FraxConvexStrategy.sol Show resolved Hide resolved

DanielVF reviewed Dec 7, 2023

View reviewed changes

contracts/contracts/strategies/FraxConvexStrategy.sol Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

Small gas optimization

cc4c40a

pandadefi reviewed Jan 10, 2024

View reviewed changes

pandadefi reviewed Jan 11, 2024

View reviewed changes

Update value flow diagrams (#1953)

dcb83d1

* Added Balancer deposit Update Convex AMO harvest Added Balancer harvest * Updated Convex AMO and Balancer harvests value flows Updated buyback value flows * Added vote locked CVX to buyback

Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/master' into nicka/convex-frax-l…

34fde41

…ocking

naddison36 requested review from smitch88 and rafaelugolini as code owners January 15, 2024 12:11

shahthepro and others added 6 commits January 16, 2024 19:13

Fix AMO tests (#1977)

1d6e3de

* Fix some tests * Fix some more * A couple more fixes * Fix balanced metapool fixture * Fix collateral swaps

Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/master' into nicka/convex-frax-l…

7fb738f

…ocking

N-01 Lack of Indexed Event Parameters (#1973)

f0e747b

* N-01 added indexed to Lock and Unlock events * Restore prettier format

N-05 Added CURVE_VIRTUAL_PRICE_SCALE constant (#1974)

a1bda8e

Merge branch 'nicka/convex-frxeth-weth-libs' into nicka/convex-frax-l…

826735c

…ocking

sparrowDom reviewed Jan 18, 2024

View reviewed changes

sparrowDom reviewed Jan 20, 2024

View reviewed changes

pandadefi approved these changes Jan 29, 2024

View reviewed changes

sparrowDom reviewed Jan 29, 2024

View reviewed changes

DanielVF closed this May 8, 2024


		const unlockTimestampBefore =
		await fraxConvexWethStrategy.unlockTimestamp();

Frax Convex Strategy with locked Frax Staked Convex LP tokens #1917

Frax Convex Strategy with locked Frax Staked Convex LP tokens #1917

Conversation

naddison36 commented Nov 7, 2023 • edited

Contracts

Value Flows

Tests

Deploy

Review

github-actions bot commented Nov 7, 2023 • edited

codecov bot commented Nov 7, 2023 • edited

Codecov Report

DanielVF commented Nov 8, 2023 • edited

notion-workspace bot commented Nov 9, 2023

naddison36 commented Nov 9, 2023

DanielVF commented Nov 9, 2023

naddison36 commented Nov 10, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

pandadefi commented Jan 10, 2024 • edited

pandadefi Jan 11, 2024 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

pandadefi Jan 11, 2024 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

naddison36 Jan 15, 2024 • edited by sparrowDom

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

naddison36 commented Jan 15, 2024

pandadefi commented Jan 15, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

sparrowDom left a comment • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

sparrowDom Jan 20, 2024 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

sparrowDom commented Jan 29, 2024

sparrowDom left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

DanielVF commented May 8, 2024 • edited

naddison36 commented Nov 7, 2023 •

edited

github-actions bot commented Nov 7, 2023 •

edited

codecov bot commented Nov 7, 2023 •

edited

DanielVF commented Nov 8, 2023 •

edited

pandadefi commented Jan 10, 2024 •

edited

pandadefi Jan 11, 2024 •

edited

pandadefi Jan 11, 2024 •

edited

naddison36 Jan 15, 2024 •

edited by sparrowDom

sparrowDom left a comment •

edited

sparrowDom Jan 20, 2024 •

edited

DanielVF commented May 8, 2024 •

edited