-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 336
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
Deposit xcm fees to treasury #1036
Conversation
@@ -114,7 +114,7 @@ describeParachain( | |||
|
|||
// check asset in storage | |||
const registeredAsset = await parachainOne.query.assets.asset(assetId); | |||
expect((registeredAsset.toHuman() as { owner: string }).owner).to.eq(palletId.toLowerCase()); | |||
expect((registeredAsset.toHuman() as { owner: string }).owner).to.eq(palletId); |
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 is a change that was not fixed when we merged the Account20 PR
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.
Can we also get rid of toHuman? I remember Jaco discouraged our using that in tests.
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.
sure, will try
Wouldn't it be more relevant to apply the same ratio as for transaction fees? (20% for treasury and 80% burned) |
I think we want to mimic exactly what the sovereign account has as our total supply. If we burn, then we loose that ratio. |
Mainly because any difference on this might be an indicator of an attack going on |
Great point. That should for sure be mentioned in the description and maybe even in the code. |
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.
Overall good, just some remarks to rename some types without including the term "Treasury". Indeed, one can very well decide in the future to place these xcm fees on another account with another piece of code that then use the money on that other account for any purpose.
@girazoki think about resolving conflicts, otherwise the CI will not be triggered. |
@girazoki I merged master for the CI to be triggered |
Cool, busy with other stuff but I will take care of this shortly |
What does it do?
Deposits the xcm fees in the paid asset to Treasury::account_id()
We dont burn any of the xcm fees as we want to match exactly what the sovereign account has
Before this PR, we were burning these.
What important points reviewers should know?
Is there something left for follow-up PRs?
What alternative implementations were considered?
Are there relevant PRs or issues in other repositories (Substrate, Polkadot, Frontier, Cumulus)?
What value does it bring to the blockchain users?