Add Decay to stake amount by mikeghen · Pull Request #4 · wormhole-foundation/queries-staking

mikeghen · 2025-05-14T19:48:34Z

Resolves: #2

To do:

Rebase off of main after merging Change key from uint8 to bytes32 #3

alexkeating · 2025-05-20T13:49:58Z

+
+  /// @notice The period over which stake fully decays to zero. After this period, the entire
+  /// original stake amount is considered decayed and is claimable by the fee recipient.
+  uint256 public constant DECAY_PERIOD = 365 days;


The decay period should match accessEnd

alexkeating · 2025-05-20T13:51:45Z

+  /// @notice Convenience overload to claim for msg.sender.
+  function claim() external {
+    _claimDecay(msg.sender);
+  }


What is the use case for this function? I can't see an incentive to call it.

alexkeating · 2025-05-20T13:54:11Z

+
+    // Fee collected from jailed amount for blocked addresses
+    if (isBlocklisted[_staker]) totalJailed -= decayed;
+    else totalStaked -= decayed;


Decayed stake should not affect capacity. I am not sure exactly how this affects the rest of the code, but we probably need to track the individual stake capacity seperately on the stakeInfo.

alexkeating · 2025-05-29T18:48:18Z

    if (_stakingToken == address(0)) revert QueryTypeStakerFactory__InvalidTokenAddress();
    STAKING_TOKEN = IERC20(_stakingToken);
+    feeRecipient = _owner;
+    emit FeeRecipientUpdated(address(0), _owner);


We can probably abstract this to a internal function that is used here and in setFeeRecipient

alexkeating · 2025-05-29T18:50:38Z


    // Reset lockup and access periods
-    StakeInfo memory stakeInfo = stakes[msg.sender];
+    StakeInfo storage stakeInfo = stakes[msg.sender];


Does this need to be storage?

No, it didn't need to be

alexkeating · 2025-05-29T18:58:37Z

+
+    // If there is no fee recipient yet, update lastClaimed and exit without modifying
+    if (_feeRecipient == address(0)) {
+      stakeInfo.lastClaimed = uint48(block.timestamp);


Why would last claimed need to be updated?

It doesn't need to be, shouldn't be, now it only updates when the decay gets applied

alexkeating · 2025-05-29T19:00:15Z

    new QueryTypeStakerFactory(_owner, address(0));
  }
+
+  function testFuzz_EmitsFeeRecipientUpdatedEventWithArbitraryRecipient(address _newRecipient)


We should also have a test for emitting the event when the contract is created

Update this to test its in the constructor and added a seperate test contract for the setFeeRecipient function

alexkeating · 2025-05-29T19:01:20Z

+    returns (uint256 boundedTimeSkip)
+  {
+    // Ensure some stake remains after decay by capping time skip below access period end
+    return bound(_timeSkip, pool.lockupPeriod() + 1, pool.lockupPeriod() + pool.accessPeriod() - 1);


The stake can decay during the lockup

Moved this to just the Unstake contract where we need it to skip into the time where it's unstakable

alexkeating · 2025-05-29T19:03:34Z

+    assertEq(pool.totalStaked(), _stakeAmount, "Total staked incorrect");
+  }
+
+  function testFuzz_ClaimOnBehalfSuccessfully(


Suggested change

function testFuzz_ClaimOnBehalfSuccessfully(

function testFuzz_ClaimArbitraryDecaySuccessfully(

alexkeating · 2025-05-29T19:03:56Z

+    assertEq(remaining.amount, _stakeAmount - decayed);
+  }
+
+  function test_ClaimWithNoStakeDoesNothing(address _nonStaker) public {


Suggested change

function test_ClaimWithNoStakeDoesNothing(address _nonStaker) public {

function testFuzz_ClaimWithNoStakeDoesNothing(address _nonStaker) public {

alexkeating · 2025-05-29T19:04:15Z

+    assertEq(pool.totalStaked(), 0);
+  }
+
+  function testFuzz_ClaimWhenFeeRecipientUnsetDoesNothing(


Suggested change

function testFuzz_ClaimWhenFeeRecipientUnsetDoesNothing(

function testFuzz_ClaimWhenFeeRecipientIsTheZeroAddrss(

alexkeating · 2025-05-29T19:04:58Z

+    assertEq(stakeAfter.lastClaimed, uint48(block.timestamp), "lastClaimed not updated");
+  }
+
+  function testFuzz_ClaimWhenBlockedAndFeeRecipientUnsetKeepsJail(


This name is a little jumbled. We should try and make it clearer

alexkeating · 2025-05-29T19:06:57Z

-    assertEq(lockupEnd, expectedLockupEnd);
-    assertEq(accessEnd, expectedAccessEnd);
+    assertEq(stakeInfo.lockupEnd, expectedLockupEnd);
+    assertEq(stakeInfo.accessEnd, expectedAccessEnd);


Should we assert the decayed value as well?

alexkeating · 2025-05-30T14:43:12Z

+    if (decayed == 0) return 0;
+
+    address _feeRecipient = QueryTypeStakerFactory(FACTORY).feeRecipient();
+    if (_feeRecipient == address(0)) return 0;


I think there may be a problem here. If no decay is applied while the fee recipient is the 0 address than once a fee recipient is added many stakes may have immediately decayed to 0. Since the lastClaimed will be when the stake was created. We should probably just remove this and burn the decayed stake if the fee recipient is zero. That way at least the behavior is consistent.

* Change naming

github-actions · 2025-07-10T10:57:14Z

Coverage after merging decay-stake into main will be

100.00%

Coverage Report

File	Stmts	Branches	Funcs	Lines
src
QueryTypeStakerFactory.sol	100%	100%	100%	100%
QueryTypeStakingPool.sol	100%	100%	100%	100%

mikeghen changed the base branch from main to query-key-change May 14, 2025 19:50

mikeghen marked this pull request as draft May 14, 2025 19:50

mikeghen force-pushed the decay-stake branch 4 times, most recently from 35faa00 to 0fd8b2f Compare May 14, 2025 20:58

mikeghen force-pushed the query-key-change branch 2 times, most recently from a80768d to 4093bad Compare May 19, 2025 13:34

alexkeating reviewed May 20, 2025

View reviewed changes

mikeghen force-pushed the decay-stake branch from 0fd8b2f to c959a62 Compare May 27, 2025 18:59

mikeghen changed the base branch from query-key-change to main May 27, 2025 18:59

mikeghen marked this pull request as ready for review May 27, 2025 19:00

mikeghen force-pushed the decay-stake branch 8 times, most recently from b5d5369 to fe64913 Compare May 29, 2025 18:21

alexkeating reviewed May 29, 2025

View reviewed changes

mikeghen force-pushed the decay-stake branch from fe64913 to 2675cd8 Compare May 29, 2025 20:36

alexkeating reviewed May 30, 2025

View reviewed changes

Add Decay to stake amount

8bbb0e7

mikeghen force-pushed the decay-stake branch from 2675cd8 to 8bbb0e7 Compare May 30, 2025 15:03

alexkeating added 2 commits May 31, 2025 15:36

Some minor cleanup (#5)

579ee80

Cleaned up variable names (#6)

b33e311

* Change naming

alexkeating merged commit 9c0d8cd into main Jul 10, 2025
4 checks passed

	function testFuzz_ClaimOnBehalfSuccessfully(
	function testFuzz_ClaimArbitraryDecaySuccessfully(

	function test_ClaimWithNoStakeDoesNothing(address _nonStaker) public {
	function testFuzz_ClaimWithNoStakeDoesNothing(address _nonStaker) public {

	function testFuzz_ClaimWhenFeeRecipientUnsetDoesNothing(
	function testFuzz_ClaimWhenFeeRecipientIsTheZeroAddrss(

Uh oh!

Conversation

mikeghen commented May 14, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Jul 10, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

mikeghen commented May 14, 2025 •

edited

Loading