Add accounting rules for new wrapped event subtypes #161
Conversation
nicholasyoder
force-pushed
the
new-wrapped-rules
branch
3 times, most recently
from
389103c to
dcc7bda
Compare
| "event_subtype": "deposit for wrapped", | ||
| "counterparty": "aave-v3", | ||
| "taxable": false, | ||
| "count_entire_amount_spend": false, | ||
| "count_cost_basis_pnl": true, | ||
| "accounting_treatment": "SWAP" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I've skipped aave-v2 on purpose here. If you notice the aave-v2 deposit rule is being modified here: 73c7160 to not be treated as a SWAP, since aave v2 has its own accountant logic.
This actually makes it identical to the general (null counterparty) deposit/deposit for wrapped rule - so we shouldn't need any special rule for aave-v2.
Now I'm also realizing that the "edit" to the deposit asset rule for aave-v2 added in the PR I linked is no longer actually needed since its now deposit for wrapped and will be handled correctly by the general deposit for wrapped rule as explained above, so I'm removing that.
| "event_type": "deposit", | ||
| "event_subtype": "deposit for wrapped", | ||
| "counterparty": "Locked GNO", | ||
| "taxable": false, | ||
| "count_entire_amount_spend": false, | ||
| "count_cost_basis_pnl": true, | ||
| "accounting_treatment": "SWAP" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
seems that we have a rule also for remove asset... since you get a wrapped I guess you also need the redeem wrapped
There was a problem hiding this comment.
But the existing rule for Locked GNO withdraw/remove asset is identical to the general withdraw/remove asset rule. I'm not sure why this counterparty specific rule was added when it doesn't specify anything different than what the general rule does. So I don't think we need anything special for Locked GNO with the new subtype. Also the old Locked GNO withdraw/remove asset rule should probably also be removed in the db upgrade you mentioned. Or is there something I'm not considering here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yes, then we need to remove it if it is identical to the general rule
nicholasyoder
force-pushed
the
new-wrapped-rules
branch
from
dcc7bda to
59dd67b
Compare
No description provided.