You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
In CollateralRegistry, the redeemCollateral function has a special case for when all active branches are fully "backed". In this case the function will redeem from all active branches proportionally to the branch debt.
However, an edge case that is not explicitly handled is when there is a branch with more than zero unbacked debt, but less than the requested _boldAmount (and the other branches are fully backed). In this case, the function will redeem only from this branch, even though the branch will also become fully backed during the redemption process. This means that "fully backed" branches can be redeemed unproportionally.
It is not clearly specified if this is expected behavior or not.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
there is a branch with more than zero unbacked debt, but less than the requested _boldAmount (and the other branches are fully backed)
If all the branches are fully backed except one, then the max amount that can be redeemed is the unbacked portion of that one branch, otherwise the sum of all SPs would exceed the total supply. So it seems to me that this scenario is impossible.
In CollateralRegistry, the
redeemCollateral
function has a special case for when all active branches are fully "backed". In this case the function will redeem from all active branches proportionally to the branch debt.However, an edge case that is not explicitly handled is when there is a branch with more than zero unbacked debt, but less than the requested
_boldAmount
(and the other branches are fully backed). In this case, the function will redeem only from this branch, even though the branch will also become fully backed during the redemption process. This means that "fully backed" branches can be redeemed unproportionally.It is not clearly specified if this is expected behavior or not.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: