Conversation
GNSPS
left a comment
GNSPS
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I also don't get why this is important for the threat model:
To vote on snapshot, you need a private key, therefore contracts are excluded.
And I kind of disagree with the "optimistic" nomenclature here:
Optimistic approval admin support for re-delegation
Because in my mind "optimistic" approval kind of requires an automatic fraud-proof-like system that can be initiated by any actor, as opposed to having to be revoked through a DAO vote (i.e., a subjective, more prolonged interaction).
Overall the contract LGTM. These are mostly nitpicks.
| /// @notice withdraw tokens from the PCV allocation | ||
| /// @param amountUnderlying of tokens withdrawn | ||
| /// @param to the address to send PCV to | ||
| function withdraw(address to, uint256 amountUnderlying) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it's awkward to have a function that behaves exactly the same way as PCVDeposit::withdrawERC20 but with just more relaxed pre-conditions.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Removed the pause condition
2 participants
To vote on snapshot, you need a private key, therefore contracts are excluded.
In order to use the INDEX from the potential OTC deal, we'd need to use the snapshot delegate registry to appoint a proxy EOA. https://docs.snapshot.org/guides/delegation
This PR introduces a snapshot delegator PCV deposit with the following features:
It also updates the indexOTC DAO proposal with a transfer of INDEX from the DAO to the snapshotDelegator