-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 8
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
Comments
IMHO we should ditch the total balance altogether, and just have the secured and delegated balances |
(From a discussion with @JSwambo) Having the following balances:
Regarding the UI:
If we go this way, I think we should remove this box, as it would be useless: What do you think? |
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 |
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:
|
Sorry, misclick! |
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.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: