Skip to content

Conversation

@OpenCoreCH
Copy link

@tkkwon1998
Copy link
Member

@OpenCoreCH is there a need to have the protocolCmd be payable?

What are the downsides to sending the CANTO rewards to this contract separately? I think we should use a similar method as CLM. Where Canto governance sends CANTO rewards to a reservoir, which then drips the CANTO to the lending market per block.

@OpenCoreCH
Copy link
Author

@OpenCoreCH is there a need to have the protocolCmd be payable?

What are the downsides to sending the CANTO rewards to this contract separately? I think we should use a similar method as CLM. Where Canto governance sends CANTO rewards to a reservoir, which then drips the CANTO to the lending market per block.

That would also work, but I think we currently could not send CANTO to the contract separately because CrocSwapDex has no fallback or receive function. But we can add that and then remove the payable for protocolCmd.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants