The DApps do not have direct access to your wallet. They can only submit an operation and then you get a standard popup from the wallet to review and validate (or not) that operation. So, even if the DApp misrepresents what it’s proposing, the validation popup will have the correct information about the actual transaction you are approving.
Has hitting the confirm button to open a new trove but it doing nothing been resolved? Has the id (at least on dappnet) of Nephrite been resolved?
Also again, this is why I suggest a github or something similar, so these issues are trackable
Is there something I can check in my log file about why the screen just flashes (and briefly shows what might be a loading symbol in the top right but not sure) when trying to open a trove? Nobody else experiencing this? Can use other dapps. On the latest version of dappnet. Have enough Beam. Beam isn’t locked. Even uninstalled and reinstalled the Nephrite dapp. Made sure every NPH CA I could see was toggled on in settings. Not sure what’s up other than a personal hardware/software/os problem if nobody else is experiencing it, then that’s fine by me
Can the Nephrite team put together an educational thread like this LUSD article?
I think it’s good time to let people know a privacy version of LUSD exist
Update on this, myself and dbadol in the community telegram troubleshooted. He figured out that this is in fact a bug that somehow is overcome with 4000 beam and 100 nph amounts. The 1000 and 10 as seen in my bug report video which I can’t post here but have posted elsewhere do not work
I have converted it using an online tool to gif so that it can be supported to post here
Also not sure if this is expected behavior or not but I only received 99.45 nph not 100, so can’t close my own trove immediately after (or ever for that matter without being able to get nph from someone else). I can repay 10 nph but not 50 or 99.45 either. Same type of screen flash bug. And that 10 doesn’t actually go through. The transaction expires or fails. But it at least allows me to accept it
Maybe this is because of their issuance fee. The fee is deducted from the issued NPH amount, the same with LUSD (Liquity) issuance.
Interesting. I wouldn’t suggest straying from the Liquity handbook because I’m sure some thought has gone into it and there’s a reason for it. Just seems odd. Like issuance fee could be in Beam or something. Or 100+issuance fee in my case instead of being deducted from it. Anyways
Thank you so much for taking the time to report bugs in our dappnet. We appreciate your feedback and we are actively working on fixing all the reported issues.
Some of you may have suggested using Github, but at this stage, we have decided not to use it. We won’t go into the details, but rest assured that we are doing our best to provide a smooth experience with the Dapp release.
We are excited to announce that a new version of dappnet will be released soon, which includes fixes for all the reported issues. In addition, we are planning to add an FAQ section to the user guide tab to help address some of the unclear scenarios.
We would love your help with this. Please feel free to drop any questions you think should be included in the FAQ section in the comments below. We’ll take care of answering them.
Thank you all for your great support! We can’t wait to release a truly confidential, censorship-resistant, and decentralized stablecoin
Where does the oracle pull data from? Aggregated exchange data? If so, this risk should be displayed in the front end of the dapp ideally. Regarding oracle trustworthiness, potential data manipulation, low volume swings, etc…
The price is also more volatile than Eth as you noted. Couple that with Beam block times being longer than Ethereum block times. Do we think 110% min collateral is enough given that? Something to consider, idk. To each their own on taking the risk being the stability pool provider but would be a shame if they got screwed because of the perverse incentive of earning BeamX for being there. And the trove creators getting screwed over something from the first paragraph. The same general logic applies with the AMM’s too and impermanent loss. Just all about designing systems as well as they can be and informing people of the risks of said systems
When I create a trove, if the ICR is 110.9%, I can validate the operation but it will then expire. If I set the ICR to 111.2%, then it works.
So, it seems that the contract is only considering the integer part of the amounts. Is that it?
I still can’t open a trove. Just in case the update is thought to have fixed it
Is the updated version already out yet?
I don’t know if it has anything to do with Nephrite code, or if it’s a DAppnet thing, but when I want to claim my rewards and liquidation revenue, I always have to try many times (like 5 or 6 times) before it goes through. All the previous transactions appear as “expired”.
I still can’t open trove with 1900 beam collateral + issuing 50 NPH
Creating troves is working fine for me now. ICR just needs to be >111% (i.e. it doesn’t work for 110.4%, by instance)
I can try with 900% ICR and it won’t work
Do you really have to go ahead with this ugly name “nephrite”. If this brand was created by professionals, then I think they should be fired. It’s too long and clumsy, does not pass the telephone test i.e. on the phone, “how do you spell that Sir?”