-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 608
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
Support superfluid staking queries #1525
Comments
I explore both options and I think that the second options would be better. Here is why? I first look at staking delegation query
Changing this would mean expanding staking query to return more assets.
|
@mattverse @ValarDragon can you confirm my direction? |
@nghuyenthevinh2000 just left a review on the draft PR! |
two interpretations for this issue between me and @hieuvubk: Context: Person A has staked 100 gamm/pool/1 through superfluid and 20 osmo through normal staking.
Which interpretation is applied here? |
@mattverse @ValarDragon @alexanderbez I guess that it will be hard to decide, so I have combined @hieuvubk work on osmo equivalent to mine. This is contribution to @hieuvubk New logic for delegation query will include calculating osmo equivalent of superfluid asset and add it to normal staking: |
Background
cref: #1191 (comment)
With superfluid module now being added governance support along with meeting the interface satisfaction, we should now try to integrate the staking query with the superfluid module if possible, if not try creating a conjoined query within the superfluid module to have better support for querying superfluid staked assets.
Suggested Design
Either both approach would suffice:
Acceptance Criteria
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: