Skip to content

Conversation

@pxrl
Copy link
Collaborator

@pxrl pxrl commented Dec 19, 2025

Spotted in production - on chains where there is consecutive MDC config (i.e. 1 block, 2 blocks, 3 blocks), there ends up being a gap in the resulting config. This imposes an unintended delay on filling some higher-value deposits.

Spotted in production - on chains where there is consecutive MDC config
(i.e. 1 block, 2 blocks, 3 blocks), there ends up being a gap in the
resulting config. This imposes an unintended delay on filling some
higher-value deposits.
const limits = mdcs.map(({ usdThreshold, minConfirmations }, idx) => {
const toBlock = Math.max(head - minConfirmations, deploymentBlock);
const fromBlock =
idx < mdcs.length - 1 ? Math.max(head - mdcs[idx + 1].minConfirmations + 1, 0) : deploymentBlock;
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why do we need to query the origin chain commitment from [head - mdc[x-1], head - mdc[x]]? If I'm understanding this correctly, if we have head at block 15, fills every block from [10, 15], and mdcs [100: 1, 300: 3] as an example, then does this mean the commitment for the mdc at 300 only accounts for fills from [deployment, 12]? If so, why should it not account for the fills at blocks 13+?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants