chore: deploy a new Polygon impl#1370
chore: deploy a new Polygon impl#1370grasphoper wants to merge 1 commit intotry-multicall-polygonfrom
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Ihor Farion <ihor@umaproject.org>
grasphoper
requested review from
bmzig,
mrice32,
nicholaspai and
pxrl
as code owners
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: f175c82702
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
| "timestamp": 1773859577936, | ||
| "chain": 137, | ||
| "commit": "18e2e7a4" | ||
| "commit": "3d163b86" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This broadcast claims the Polygon implementation was deployed from 3d163b86, but git show 3d163b86:script/DeployPolygonSpokePool.s.sol still uses oftFeeCap = 22000 ether; only this change switches the constructor arg to 51658 ether. In other words, checking out the recorded revision and rebuilding will not reproduce the bytecode/constructor args for 0x4a84a43274f5f99e94aa0ebef53bc06af8bc3dfb, which breaks the audit/verification trail for this deployment.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this is always the case right? the commit hash shown here will be the commit right before the actual deployment changes are committed?
| // Fee cap of 22K POL is roughly equivalent to $5K at current POL price of ~0.23 | ||
| uint256 oftFeeCap = 22000 ether; | ||
| // Fee cap of 51658 POL is roughly equivalent to $5K at current POL price of ~0.09679 | ||
| uint256 oftFeeCap = 51658 ether; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I wonder if there is a way we can make these to be more dynamic?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, by just querying the coingecko or smth right
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Although, the fact that we have $5K as our anchor is also kind of arbitrary 🤷
3 participants
No description provided.