feat: NoLock gauge type and external gauge creation wiring to CL #5459

p0mvn · 2023-06-08T01:32:01Z

Closes: #XXX

What is the purpose of the change

This PR prototypes concentrated liquidity external incentives wiring into the exiting gauges model.

Contrary to previous reviews, it did not work out of the box. As a result, modifications were necessary.

Core of the idea:

Create a gauge with NoLock LockQueryType enum
Add a pool_id field to MsgCreateGauge
If NoLock is set, pool id must also be set and the pool must be a CL pool
Modify distribution logic to check for NoLock. If that's set, validate that there is a CL pool associated with this gauge and create an incentive record for it
Otherwise, use the regular pre-existing distribution flow

Incentives Module Changes

Besides the perpetual and non-perpetual categorization, gauges can now be grouped across another dimension - ByDuration or NoLock.
This is set on the DistrTo.LockQueryType field of the MsgCreateGauge.

ByDuration when the gauge of this kind is created, it is meant to incentivize locks. When it is set,
the PoolId field of the MsgCreateGauge must be zero.
NoLock when the gauge of this kind is created, it is meant to incentivize pools directly. When it is set,
the PoolId field of the MsgCreateGauge must be non-zero. Additionally, it must be associated with a CL
pool at launch. Moreover, the DistrTo.Denom field must be set to empty string in such a case.

Each of the ByDuration and NoLock gauges can be perpetual or non-perpetual and function according to the
conventional rules of the respective gauge type.

Additionally, for NoLock gauges, lockuptypes.Denom must be either an empty string, signifying that
this is an external gauge, or be equal to types.NoLockInternalGaugeDenom(poolId) (when created from the AfterPoolCreatedHook)
If the denom is empty, it will get overwritten to types.NoLockExternalGaugeDenom(poolId).
This denom formatting is useful for querying internal vs externa gauges associated with a pool since the denom prefix is
appended into the store prefix.

Concentrated Liquidity External Gauge Creation

To create a gauge dedicated to the concentrated liquidity pool, run a MsgCreateGauge message in the x/incentives module with the following parameters:

PoolId: The ID of the CL pool to create a gauge for.
DistrTo.LockQueryType must be set to locktypes.LockQueryType.NoLock
DistrTo.Denom must be an empty string.

The rest of the parameters can be set according to the desired configuration of the gauge. Please read the x/incentives module documentation for more information on how to configure gauges.

Note, that the created gauge will start emitting at the first epoch after the given StartTime. During the epoch, a x/concentrated-liquidity
module IncentiveRecord will be created for every denom in the gauge. This incentive record will be condifured to emit all given incentives
over the period of an epoch. If the gauge is non-perpetual (emits over several epochs), the distribution will be split evenly between the epochs.
and a new IncentiveRecord will be created for each denom every epoch with the emission rate and token set to finish emitting at the end of the epoch.

Testing and Verifying

Added unit tests
Tested using the tool from: feat/docs: CL external incentives tool #5458

Important Unit Tests to Verify

TestCreateGauge_NoLockGauges
TestDistribute_InternalIncentives_NoLock
TestDistribute_ExternalIncentives_NoLock

Documentation and Release Note

Does this pull request introduce a new feature or user-facing behavior changes?
Changelog entry added to Unreleased section of CHANGELOG.md?

Where is the change documented?

Specification (x/{module}/README.md)
Osmosis documentation site
Code comments?
N/A

stackman27

thank you for the PR. looks solid so far

i'll try to re-review and run test by the eod

x/incentives/keeper/gauge.go

p0mvn · 2023-06-08T19:12:32Z

x/incentives/keeper/distribute.go

-	denom := lockuptypes.NativeDenom(gauge.DistributeTo.Denom)
-	lockSum := lockuptypes.SumLocksByDenom(locks, denom)
-
-	if lockSum.IsZero() {
-		return nil, nil
-	}


Note: all of the removed logic here and below was moved to the else case of

if gauge.DistributeTo.LockQueryType == lockuptypes.NoLock {

ref: https://github.com/osmosis-labs/osmosis/pull/5459/files#r1223483274

stackman27

This LGTM besides some minor comments

also localosmosis tested QueryExternalIncentiveGaugesRequest and it works as expected. Still testing QueryIncentivizedPoolsRequest

MacBook-Pro-26:osmosis sishirg27$ 
MacBook-Pro-26:osmosis sishirg27$ 
MacBook-Pro-26:osmosis sishirg27$ osmosisd q poolincentives external-incentivized-gauges
data:
- coins:
  - amount: "1000"
    denom: stake
  - amount: "10000"
    denom: uosmo
  distribute_to:
    denom: no-lock/e/1
    duration: 86400s
    lock_query_type: NoLock
    timestamp: "1970-01-01T00:00:00Z"
  distributed_coins: []
  filled_epochs: "0"
  id: "11"
  is_perpetual: true
  num_epochs_paid_over: "1"
  start_time: "1970-01-01T00:00:00Z"
- coins:
  - amount: "1200"
    denom: uion
  distribute_to:
    denom: no-lock/e/1
    duration: 86400s
    lock_query_type: NoLock
    timestamp: "1970-01-01T00:00:00Z"
  distributed_coins: []
  filled_epochs: "0"
  id: "12"
  is_perpetual: true
  num_epochs_paid_over: "1"
  start_time: "1970-01-01T00:00:00Z"

x/pool-incentives/keeper/keeper.go

stackman27 · 2023-06-09T19:10:10Z

x/pool-incentives/keeper/keeper.go

+
+// SetPoolGaugeIdNoLock sets the link between pool id and gauge id for "NoLock" gauges.
+// CONTRACT: the gauge of the given id must be "NoLock" gauge.
+func (k Keeper) SetPoolGaugeIdNoLock(ctx sdk.Context, poolId uint64, gaugeId uint64) {


just as a point of caution, can we make sure that we cannot set one of LockableDuration to 0 for Lock case. For instance in this function SetLockableDurations ?

What specifically are you suggesting? I currently don't see anything that can be done where the added complexity would be justified by the security benefit but open to try specific paths if you see any

I was thinking of a case where with these lockable Duration [0s, 1m, 1h] in that case there will be 2 store entries with same Key no?

here: https://github.com/osmosis-labs/osmosis/pull/5459/files#diff-968d496699ec6c793045c4d26a3a3de4af2f46e5a5d9a94b81ae11e0e59a1903R142

and here: https://github.com/osmosis-labs/osmosis/pull/5459/files#diff-968d496699ec6c793045c4d26a3a3de4af2f46e5a5d9a94b81ae11e0e59a1903R161

I see, not really concerned about that case because we explicitly hardcode that value to be incentivized epoch duration for "No Lock" gauges, changing which is gated by governance.

However, I will add the suggested check prior to merge

x/pool-incentives/keeper/keeper.go

stackman27

LGTM!!

Really great PR! There might be some weird edge case flow that might not be obvious so definitely want to do rigirious functional test on this

czarcas7ic

Nice work!

Agreed with sish that we will likely need some functional tests to feel 100 percent with this, but feeling more comfortable with this now

x/incentives/keeper/distribute_test.go

x/incentives/keeper/gauge.go

x/incentives/types/msgs.go

x/pool-incentives/keeper/keeper.go

Co-authored-by: Adam Tucker <[email protected]>

p0mvn · 2023-06-10T19:32:09Z

Thanks for the reviews.

Did some more localosmosis tests.

Created some balancer and CL pools, internal incentive distribution records for 1 balancer and 1 CL gauge
Created and external NoLock gauge.

Observed that the queries for internal and external gauges work as intended and that CL incentive records get created.

However, I did not validate the exact numbers which should be done in #5471

I also found a bug that is specific to CL incentive records and is outside of scope of this PR: #5492

Merging this PR to unblock #5471 and #5492

feat/docs: CL external incentives tool

636b017

github-actions bot added C:docs Improvements or additions to documentation C:x/incentives C:x/lockup C:x/pool-incentives C:x/superfluid T:build labels Jun 8, 2023

p0mvn changed the base branch from main to roman/cl-incentive June 8, 2023 01:33

stackman27 reviewed Jun 8, 2023

View reviewed changes

x/incentives/keeper/gauge.go Show resolved Hide resolved

p0mvn force-pushed the roman/cl-external-incentives branch from 4c65a87 to 6981481 Compare June 8, 2023 03:07

github-actions bot removed T:build C:docs Improvements or additions to documentation labels Jun 8, 2023

p0mvn added V:state/breaking State machine breaking PR A:no-changelog labels Jun 8, 2023

stackman27 mentioned this pull request Jun 8, 2023

Refactor createGauge to accomodate for CL gauges #5383

Closed

6 tasks

p0mvn added 12 commits June 8, 2023 18:14

updates

3bde128

updates

efa9a2d

updates

5adbfa4

updates

6425507

updates

95cf146

updates

5eb5ce2

updates

ec2d50a

updates

b758cd4

updates

03c59df

updates

ca3ca48

updates

15a575f

updates

68e42a6

p0mvn force-pushed the roman/cl-external-incentives branch from df80f1c to 68e42a6 Compare June 8, 2023 19:08

github-actions bot added the T:build label Jun 8, 2023

p0mvn commented Jun 8, 2023

View reviewed changes

p0mvn added 8 commits June 9, 2023 19:00

superfluid comment

d3ce09a

disallow no lock gauge with duration set

c856cc4

test gauge distribution state update

897e9df

error message improvement

975275b

remove obsolete field

56684e9

clarify test name

4cc0e83

updates

657e293

doc improvements

52bd732

stackman27 reviewed Jun 9, 2023

View reviewed changes

p0mvn added 3 commits June 9, 2023 20:54

clean up TestDistribute_InternalIncentives_NoLock

f9a3d73

clarifying comment

24ba68c

updates

02049e6

p0mvn requested review from stackman27 and czarcas7ic June 9, 2023 23:23

stackman27 reviewed Jun 9, 2023

View reviewed changes

x/pool-incentives/keeper/keeper.go Show resolved Hide resolved

stackman27 approved these changes Jun 10, 2023

View reviewed changes

czarcas7ic approved these changes Jun 10, 2023

View reviewed changes

x/incentives/keeper/distribute_test.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

x/incentives/keeper/gauge.go Show resolved Hide resolved

x/incentives/types/msgs.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

x/pool-incentives/keeper/keeper.go Show resolved Hide resolved

Base automatically changed from roman/cl-incentive to main June 10, 2023 17:07

p0mvn requested a review from a team as a code owner June 10, 2023 17:07

p0mvn and others added 6 commits June 10, 2023 17:10

Merge branch 'main' into roman/cl-external-incentives

2aa0fcc

Update x/incentives/keeper/distribute_test.go

7499cff

Co-authored-by: Adam Tucker <[email protected]>

error message

ffcaa04

zero duration check and test

692cb86

clean up

a701132

lint

7cdf7ae

p0mvn merged commit 2fd0415 into main Jun 10, 2023

p0mvn deleted the roman/cl-external-incentives branch June 10, 2023 19:32

github-actions bot mentioned this pull request Apr 15, 2024

Broken Links Detected #8046

Closed

github-actions bot mentioned this pull request Oct 15, 2024

Broken Links Detected notional-labs/osmosis#75

Closed

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

feat: NoLock gauge type and external gauge creation wiring to CL #5459

feat: NoLock gauge type and external gauge creation wiring to CL #5459

p0mvn commented Jun 8, 2023 •

edited

Loading

stackman27 left a comment

p0mvn Jun 8, 2023 •

edited

Loading

stackman27 left a comment

stackman27 Jun 9, 2023

p0mvn Jun 9, 2023

stackman27 Jun 9, 2023 •

edited

Loading

p0mvn Jun 9, 2023

stackman27 left a comment

czarcas7ic left a comment

p0mvn commented Jun 10, 2023

feat: NoLock gauge type and external gauge creation wiring to CL #5459

feat: NoLock gauge type and external gauge creation wiring to CL #5459

Conversation

p0mvn commented Jun 8, 2023 • edited Loading

What is the purpose of the change

Incentives Module Changes

Concentrated Liquidity External Gauge Creation

Testing and Verifying

Important Unit Tests to Verify

Documentation and Release Note

stackman27 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

p0mvn Jun 8, 2023 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

stackman27 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

stackman27 Jun 9, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

p0mvn Jun 9, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

stackman27 Jun 9, 2023 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

p0mvn Jun 9, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

stackman27 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

czarcas7ic left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

p0mvn commented Jun 10, 2023

p0mvn commented Jun 8, 2023 •

edited

Loading

p0mvn Jun 8, 2023 •

edited

Loading

stackman27 Jun 9, 2023 •

edited

Loading