@purcell here are some small edits/feedback based on changes we made w.r.t. the original doc. There are two things that I was not sure how to fix:
The Target section in design.rst still is written with the understanding that the cfmm gives us tez/kit, but it actually gives us ctez/kit. Thing is, currently we assume ctez/tez = 1 (which is not necessarily what we want to stick with) so technically the numbers there are still correct, but I guess that's subject to change(?). Maybe we should put a TODO there for when that part of the code is finalized? Not sure.
"and saturates when the imbalance hits 20%"
This is no longer true, because the calculation changed in #124. Not sure what is the current percentage for saturation, but I'll tinker a little to figure it out, but I am sure it is not as pretty a number anymore. I wonder if we need this level of specificity here, since the parameter could change between checker instances. Might be a better idea to directly paste the formula from #124?
Also:
"ensures the stability of the target"
"ensures" is probably a rather strong word here.
"tez are sometimes forfeited to it (TODO: still true?)"
Yeah, this was probably never true (it certainly isn't true now) so I'd delete it altogether I think.
@purcell here are some small edits/feedback based on changes we made w.r.t. the original doc. There are two things that I was not sure how to fix:
Target
section indesign.rst
still is written with the understanding that the cfmm gives us tez/kit, but it actually gives us ctez/kit. Thing is, currently we assume ctez/tez = 1 (which is not necessarily what we want to stick with) so technically the numbers there are still correct, but I guess that's subject to change(?). Maybe we should put a TODO there for when that part of the code is finalized? Not sure.This is no longer true, because the calculation changed in #124. Not sure what is the current percentage for saturation, but I'll tinker a little to figure it out, but I am sure it is not as pretty a number anymore. I wonder if we need this level of specificity here, since the parameter could change between checker instances. Might be a better idea to directly paste the formula from #124?
Also:
"ensures" is probably a rather strong word here.
Yeah, this was probably never true (it certainly isn't true now) so I'd delete it altogether I think.