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

Generate own step payout function #2352

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Apr 7, 2024
Merged

Generate own step payout function #2352

merged 4 commits into from
Apr 7, 2024

Conversation

luckysori
Copy link
Contributor

@luckysori luckysori commented Apr 2, 2024

Note to reviewers: the second patch was an attempt at fixing #2288 which was later replaced by rewriting the payout curve generation logic. I would recommend to review this PR in one go (not patch by patch).

Fixes #2288.
Fixes #1834.

Before this PR, we generated a polynomial payout function which would then be transformed by rust-dlc into a step function. This approach was problematic because we could not trust rust-dlc to not mess with the intervals excessively.

Specifically, any changes to the liquidation intervals could cause problems because they represent the collateral reserves, which are used to indicate available balances and are circumstantially needed to complete features such as position resizing.

Now we take full control of the payout function generation, directly generating a step function that can be consumed by rust-dlc without rounding. The payout is calculated by taking the PNL at the half-way point of the interval.

It is important to emphasise that we must opt out of rounding by using a RoundingIntervals with a single element of the form:

RoundingInterval {
    begin_interval: 0,
    rounding_mod: 1,
}

Overall, I think the code is considerably simpler and there are fewer edge cases to handle.

One important thing to consider is that we can now directly control the number of payouts we generate, which has an effect on the number of CETs that will be created. This is currently set by the constant PAYOUT_CURVE_DISCRETIZATION_INTERVALS, but in the future we could make it dynamic.

Additionally, at the moment the majority of the intervals are of equal length in terms of price. Eventually we might want to generate more, smaller intervals around the starting price, and make the less likely intervals bigger as we approach the liquidation zones.

Other notable changes

Since we had to replace a snapshot, we've introduced a dev-dependency to insta1, a library that makes it easy to write and maintain snapshot tests. There is a companion tool, cargo-insta2, which can help with this process.

Footnotes

  1. https://github.com/mitsuhiko/insta.

  2. https://github.com/mitsuhiko/insta/tree/master/cargo-insta.

@luckysori luckysori self-assigned this Apr 2, 2024
@luckysori luckysori force-pushed the fix/issue-2288 branch 3 times, most recently from cfce164 to cd8a54f Compare April 3, 2024 08:23
@luckysori luckysori enabled auto-merge April 3, 2024 08:34
@luckysori luckysori force-pushed the fix/issue-2288 branch 2 times, most recently from 95117e7 to 2665f22 Compare April 4, 2024 03:42
@luckysori luckysori changed the title Ensure that liquidation payouts are sane Generate own step payout function Apr 5, 2024
@luckysori
Copy link
Contributor Author

luckysori commented Apr 5, 2024

Running the payout_curve example shows that the hard-coded function has not changed after this PR. On the left is before this PR; on the right, after the PR.

`NumericalDescriptor::get_range_payouts` should be called with the
_total_ collateral, including position margin and the collateral
reserves.
We were allowing the short liquidation payout to go under the short
party's collateral reserve, which was obviously wrong.

The payout curve is still a bit rough around the edges (literally).
This is because we have to make relatively big payout jumps to connect
the liquidation intervals with the adjacent intervals. I'm not sure
there is a good solution for this other than going back to the
ItchySats payout curve.
This is the (probably) last thing that prevents us from being able to
rely on the payout curve liquidation intervals for things like the
available balance and, relatedly, position resizing.
Before this patch, we generated a polynomial payout function which
would then be transformed by `rust-dlc` into a step function. This
approach was problematic because we could not trust `rust-dlc` to not
mess with the intervals excessively.

Specifically, any changes to the liquidation intervals could cause
problems because they represent the collateral reserves, which are
used to indicate available balances and are circumstantially needed to
complete features such as position resizing.

Now we take full control of the payout function generation, directly
generating a step function that can be consumed by `rust-dlc`
_without_ rounding. The payout is calculated by taking the PNL at the
half-way point of the interval.

It is important to emphasise that we must opt out
of rounding by using a `RoundingIntervals` with a single element of
the form:

```rust
RoundingInterval {
    begin_interval: 0,
    rounding_mod: 1,
}
```

Overall, I think the code is considerably simpler and there are fewer
edge cases to handle.

One important thing to consider is that we can now directly control
the number of payouts we generate, which has an effect on the number
of CETs that will be created. This is currently set by the constant
`PAYOUT_CURVE_DISCRETIZATION_INTERVALS`, but in the future we could
make it dynamic.

Additionally, at the moment the majority of the intervals are of equal
length in terms of price. Eventually we might want to generate more,
smaller intervals around the starting price, and make the less likely
intervals bigger as we approach the liquidation zones.

Other notable changes
---------------------

Since we had to replace a snapshot, we've introduced a dev-dependency
to `insta`[^1], a library that makes it easy to write and maintain
snapshot tests. There is a companion tool, `cargo-insta`[^2], which
can help with this process.

[^1]: https://github.com/mitsuhiko/insta.
[^2]: https://github.com/mitsuhiko/insta/tree/master/cargo-insta.
Copy link
Contributor

@holzeis holzeis left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

Merged via the queue into main with commit 54a67c8 Apr 7, 2024
21 checks passed
@luckysori luckysori deleted the fix/issue-2288 branch April 7, 2024 08:53
Copy link
Contributor

@bonomat bonomat left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Please excuse the late review.

It's been a while that I've been working on this, so please be kind if this is a stupid question for a Sunday night , and I also know that this was built on my initial version. But help me out please:
In this example from payout_curve_csv, the offerer goes long with a leverage of 2 and the and the acceptor short with leverage 2.
If the price goes up, he wins everything from ~60k (short liquidation price).
but shouldn't he be losing everything from ~20k?

image

@@ -298,6 +237,140 @@ mod tests {
}
}

#[test]
fn payout_function_respects_collateral_reserve() {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Would you mind adding some comments in here please? It's hard to follow what is happening.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@luckysori reminder to do this tomorrow.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Done here: #2368.

let initial_price = dec!(28_251);
let quantity = 500.0;
let leverage_coordinator = 2.0;
let coordinator_margin = calculate_margin(initial_price, quantity, leverage_coordinator);
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It might be worth using hardcoded values all the way

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hmmm, I think these should not be hard-coded because they are derived from other parameters.


let coordinator_direction = Direction::Short;

let coordinator_collateral_reserve = 2_120_386;
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Do you have a formula of how to get to this value?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This one is just completely arbitrary based on an example that failed when running tests. It's not computed, the fee reserve can be arbitrary.

@luckysori
Copy link
Contributor Author

Please excuse the late review.

It's been a while that I've been working on this, so please be kind if this is a stupid question for a Sunday night , and I also know that this was built on my initial version. But help me out please:

In this example from payout_curve_csv, the offerer goes long with a leverage of 2 and the and the acceptor short with leverage 2.

If the price goes up, he wins everything from ~60k (short liquidation price).

but shouldn't he be losing everything from ~20k?

image

Fair question! The example configures the offer party with a fee reserve of 300k sats.

https://github.com/get10101/10101/blob/main/crates/payout_curve/examples/payout_curve_csv.rs#L54-L56

So the offer party's minimum payout is set by that amount.

@bonomat
Copy link
Contributor

bonomat commented Apr 7, 2024

Please excuse the late review.
It's been a while that I've been working on this, so please be kind if this is a stupid question for a Sunday night , and I also know that this was built on my initial version. But help me out please:
In this example from payout_curve_csv, the offerer goes long with a leverage of 2 and the and the acceptor short with leverage 2.
If the price goes up, he wins everything from ~60k (short liquidation price).
but shouldn't he be losing everything from ~20k?
image

Fair question! The example configures the offer party with a fee reserve of 300k sats.

main/crates/payout_curve/examples/payout_curve_csv.rs#L54-L56

So the offer party's minimum payout is set by that amount.

aahhh... that makes sense. Thanks for the explanation :D

@bonomat
Copy link
Contributor

bonomat commented Apr 7, 2024

Awesome work btw. :)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
3 participants