Fix misleading _A argument description #171
Open
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Current description of _A does not comply to invariant math used in contract. Typo is present in multiple pool contracts, I'm pushing this just as an example typo fix.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Current description of _A does not comply to invariant math used in contract. Typo is present in multiple pool contracts, I'm pushing this as an example fix.
What I did
Fixed one of the present typos which provide misleading interpretation of _A argument.
This fix as an example of how this description should be adapted through the codebase, as it is widely present.
Related issue: #
_A argument should be described as "amplification coefficient multiplied by n ** (n-1)"
instead of "amplification coefficient multiplied by n * (n-1)".
(the diff is only one "*")
How I did it
I reviewed the Ann computation and concluded that for
A = ac * n * (n-1),A * n != Annbut for
A = ac * n ** (n-1),A * n == Ann// ac == amplification coefficient
How to verify it
Check Ann computation within pools that are based on stable-swap invariant