[Alloyx] Use alloyx as emergency liquidity if identity_depository is emptied

The TLDR of the change is to make the rebalancing flows computed by:

let deposit_redeemable_amount = std::cmp::min(
    identity_depository_overflow_value,
    alloyx_vault_depository_underflow_value,
);
let withdraw_redeemable_amount = std::cmp::max(
    identity_depository_underflow_value,
    alloyx_vault_depository_overflow_value,
);

This is the case so that:

when the identity_depository is underflowing, we withdraw even if the alloyx_depository is not overflowing
when the alloyx_vault_depository is underflowing, we deposit only if the identity_depository is overflowing

The reasoning is that when the identity depository becomes underflowing, we need the alloyx depository to come to the rescue and help fill up the missing liquidity

Ok makes sense

On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 at 11:05 AM, uxd-vincent @.***> wrote:

@.**** commented on this pull request.

In programs/uxd/src/instructions/rebalance_alloyx_vault_depository.rs https://github.com/UXDProtocol/uxd-program/pull/319#discussion_r1421231034 :

let identity_depository_underflow_value = identity_depository_target_redeemable_amount

.saturating_sub(identity_depository_redeemable_amount_under_management);

let alloyx_vault_depository_underflow_value = alloyx_vault_depository_target_redeemable_amount

.saturating_sub(alloyx_vault_depository_redeemable_amount_under_management);

let identity_depository_overflow_value = identity_depository_redeemable_amount_under_management

.saturating_sub(identity_depository_target_redeemable_amount);

let alloyx_vault_depository_overflow_value =

alloyx_vault_depository_redeemable_amount_under_management

.saturating_sub(alloyx_vault_depository_target_redeemable_amount);

let deposit_redeemable_amount = std::cmp::min(

identity_depository_overflow_value,

alloyx_vault_depository_underflow_value,

);

let withdraw_redeemable_amount = std::cmp::max(

If there is somehow a conflict, the deposited value will be used, then the withdraw value will not be used (a single rebalancing will only do a single withdraw/deposit, not both)

In all cases however, one of the two value will always be zero:

if the overflow value > 0, then the underflow value == 0

So there is always 2 values set to zero in the min/max expressions

So there is always one of the two deposit/withdraw value that is zero

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/UXDProtocol/uxd-program/pull/319#discussion_r1421231034, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AJTOZY2BCQ3WHLFOEZ2LFO3YIPIPRAVCNFSM6AAAAABAHKQPFCVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43YUDVNRWFEZLROVSXG5CSMV3GSZLXHMYTONZTGQ2TQMRSGU . You are receiving this because your review was requested.Message ID: @.***>

UXDProtocol / uxd-program

[Alloyx] Use alloyx as emergency liquidity if identity_depository is emptied #319

@.**** commented on this pull request.