Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Home view: don't consider "securing" vaults in the total balance #252

Open
darosior opened this issue Nov 2, 2021 · 6 comments
Open

Home view: don't consider "securing" vaults in the total balance #252

darosior opened this issue Nov 2, 2021 · 6 comments
Labels

Comments

@darosior
Copy link
Member

darosior commented Nov 2, 2021

If the rationale is that we count in the total what we consider "vaults", we only consider a new deposit a vault if we had all the revocation signatures for it.

@darosior darosior changed the title Home view: don't consider "securing" in the total Home view: don't consider "securing" vaults in the total balance Nov 2, 2021
@danielabrozzoni
Copy link
Collaborator

IMHO we should ditch the total balance altogether, and just have the secured and delegated balances

@danielabrozzoni
Copy link
Collaborator

(From a discussion with @JSwambo)

Having the following balances:

  • total in custody for EVERYTHING (including only the non-secured deposits),
  • When funds are pending to be secured, you see them appear as "+ x BTC, 1 vault(s)"
  • Secured,
  • When funds are pending to be delegated, you see them as "+ y BTC, 1 vault(s)" and this amount is removed from Secured
  • Delegated

Regarding the UI:

I'm imagining "total in custody" on the top,
Then 3 boxes for Deposited, Secured, Delegated (all same style) but stacked vertically. Then it may be clear how funds progress from one category to the next

If we go this way, I think we should remove this box, as it would be useless:
Selection_145

What do you think?

@JSwambo
Copy link
Member

JSwambo commented Nov 2, 2021

If we go this way, I think we should remove this box, as it would be useless:

yeah, or rather make the box match the others.

From the user perspective, funds would be "in custody" from the moment they are deposited, until the moment a spend (or emergency) is confirmed. Also from user perspective, the funds in custody can be "Deposited", "Secured", "Delegated".

It'd be nice to have buttons that make sense for the transitions, e.g. For Secured -> Delegated a "Delegate" button is sensible. However, right now from deposited -> secured the button says "create vault", which isn't clear. So either change it to "Secure Deposit" (with secure being a verb... could be ambiguous), or change the "Secured" naming to "Vault" and keep "create vault".

There should ofc be consistency tho

@darosior
Copy link
Member Author

darosior commented Nov 2, 2021

deposited / acknowledged / active is what we previously had. Cross-linking #88 which is the only reference i could find to the decision of moving to not mention deposited coins.

IIRC the rationale was:

  • Use no Bitcoin lingo, come up with a "vault" vocabulary
  • Define a vault. What is it? We used the definition of "a coin with the revocation txs pre-signed"
  • Make deposits second-class citizens since they are'nt vaults

@danielabrozzoni
Copy link
Collaborator

Sorry, misclick!

@darosior
Copy link
Member Author

We still account for the 'securing' funds in the total balance.
image

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants