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

Updates from Fabio #971

Open
1 of 6 tasks
franzns opened this issue Sep 24, 2024 · 3 comments
Open
1 of 6 tasks

Updates from Fabio #971

franzns opened this issue Sep 24, 2024 · 3 comments
Assignees

Comments

@franzns
Copy link
Collaborator

franzns commented Sep 24, 2024

Hey @mendesfabio , can you please share updates on these points

  1. use subgraph to fetch protocol fees #19
  2. add collected protocol fee to snapshot #408
  3. Adapt v2 subgraph to expose same fields as v3 subgraph (volume, fee per token, not USD)
  4. add automated token block list #412
  5. Estimate on our monthly spend with the Graph
  6. Use API pricing for volume and fee in snapshots #773
@franzns
Copy link
Collaborator Author

franzns commented Sep 26, 2024

The Graph spend is roughly $300/month

@mendesfabio
Copy link
Member

speaking of all SG-related topics I'm wrapping up the migration of both gauges and v2 to the subgraphs monorepo - which for v2 includes adapting schema to follow v3's standards, adding fees

https://api.studio.thegraph.com/query/31386/balancer-v2-vault/version/latest

it'd be great if you can just check schema in the playground. If you try to do some queries you'll notice pre-minted BPTs are messing up things but I'm working to fix it.

@franzns
Copy link
Collaborator Author

franzns commented Oct 1, 2024

it'd be great if you can just check schema in the playground. If you try to do some queries you'll notice pre-minted BPTs are messing up things but I'm working to fix it.

I checked the schema for snapshots and pools which look good to me. Best would be to actually integrate the new schema into the API to see how much we can align v2 and v3 transformations. We are working on a big refactor currently, we can do a test integration after that.

Only thing I noticed is that you renamed joinExit to addRemove, right? That would be breaking on our end and I assume for other integrations as well. For us it doesnt matter much as we use deployment IDs and can adapt before moving to the new version. Wonder if we need to support joinExit still for others.

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

No branches or pull requests

2 participants