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

feat: Add Multicollateral Warp Route Rebalancing section #362

Open
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

edakturk14
Copy link
Collaborator

based on the notion design doc

Copy link

vercel bot commented Mar 17, 2025

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎

Name Status Preview Comments Updated (UTC)
hyp-v3-docs ✅ Ready (Inspect) Visit Preview 💬 Add feedback Mar 20, 2025 2:09pm

@edakturk14 edakturk14 changed the title feat: Add Multicollateral Warp Route section feat: Add Multicollateral Warp Route Rebalancing section Mar 17, 2025
@edakturk14 edakturk14 marked this pull request as ready for review March 17, 2025 19:14
@edakturk14 edakturk14 requested a review from tkporter March 17, 2025 19:14
Comment on lines 153 to 155
## Future: Admin-Controlled Liquidity Rebalancing

Depending on the collateral asset and the pair of chains, several different rebalancing paths may be available. For example, CCTP (Circle’s Cross-Chain Transfer Protocol) can efficiently move USDC between Base and Arbitrum. Other assets and pairs may require more complex rebalancing paths (eg L2 withdrawals+deposits). This approach requires a permissioned rebalancer to move the collateral over trusted paths.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

im not sure how we want to hint at this publicly but would be good to check with @nambrot

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

got it - yeah can remove the example here

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@edakturk14 edakturk14 Mar 20, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

on second review - think we should remove the future section since not avaliable atm and can be vague. made the change, if you think we should add the graph there lmk

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants