-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 98
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
feat: pricer v2.0 #444
feat: pricer v2.0 #444
Conversation
What's the benefit of updating the oracle right now? functionally, isn't it the same cuz we are already able to dispute an old price? why do we need this oracle update right now with the new pricer updates. I don't think we have time to run oracle migration right now, so not sure why we're updating the Oracle contract |
Can we just implement a function that allow us to set price from the pricer? (literally the exact old function) Just so we can limit the scope to the pricer, avoid the migration. (a full migration will require us to redeploy all the pricers, and corresponding infra) I really think just adding a public function solve 95% of the problem while maintaining the same level of centralization power. |
@@ -100,6 +92,7 @@ contract('ChainlinkPricer', ([owner, bot, random]) => { | |||
before('setup history in aggregator', async () => { | |||
// set t0, t1, t2, expiry, t3, t4 | |||
t0 = (await time.latest()).toNumber() | |||
console.log('t0', t0) |
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.
remove
Yes I agree, but don't you think it is not the perfect design and way of doing things ?! just adding duplicate functions ? |
the benefit is to keep the complexity only in the Pricer, and won't make our role as Oracle Admin too powerful. |
Task: pricer v2.0
High Level Description
Specific Changes
Function x was added ...
Code
Documentation