Inclusive & valid random share reserve range; dynamic fuzz bugfix

[dpaiton]

Description

• share adjustment (zeta) was using a non-inclusive range, but the requirement (<=) implies inclusive should be valid.
  • I tested this with the bounds (share_adjustment = 0 and share_adjustment = share_reserves - min_share_reserves - fixed!(10e18)) and all tests passed with both extremes
  • note that I had to reduce the upper-bound by fixed!(10e18) for the tests to pass, which I guess means we were just getting lucky before. I made an issue for this: Tests fail when using large (but valid) share_adjustment #171
• dynamic fuzz is supposed to do 10x fuzz runs on new tests, but was 1x with FAST_FUZZ_RUNS
• fix a check in an open.rs test where the allowable max bond amount was too low

[ryangoree]

🚀 (pending missing = commit)