How can I handle multiple token deposits and refunds in a Solidity IFO contract?

[zerox-alpha]

Select Topic Area

Product Feedback

Body

I'm currently working on an Initial Farm Offering (IFO) smart contract in Solidity that supports multiple token deposits (e.g., ETH-USDT LP tokens or USDT-DAI LP tokens). I need advice on the best approach for managing the following:

1. Setting target amounts: Should I set specific target amounts for each token pair or handle the total across all deposits?
2. Refund logic: How should I handle refunds if the target is not met? Is there a best practice for calculating refunds when multiple tokens are involved?
3. User trust: What strategies can be employed to build user trust in the refund process, especially in cases where partial deposits are refunded?
Any insights or suggestions for optimizing gas costs and security in this scenario would be appreciated!

[github-actions[bot]]

💬 Your Product Feedback Has Been Submitted 🎉

Thank you for taking the time to share your insights with us! Your feedback is invaluable as we build a better GitHub experience for all our users.

Here's what you can expect moving forward ⏩

• Your input will be carefully reviewed and cataloged by members of our product teams. 
  • Due to the high volume of submissions, we may not always be able to provide individual responses.
  • Rest assured, your feedback will help chart our course for product improvements.
• Other users may engage with your post, sharing their own perspectives or experiences. 
• GitHub staff may reach out for further clarification or insight. 
  • We may 'Answer' your discussion if there is a current solution, workaround, or roadmap/changelog post related to the feedback.

Where to look to see what's shipping 👀

• Read the Changelog for real-time updates on the latest GitHub features, enhancements, and calls for feedback.
• Explore our Product Roadmap, which details upcoming major releases and initiatives.

What you can do in the meantime 💻

• Upvote and comment on other user feedback Discussions that resonate with you.
• Add more information at any point! Useful details include: use cases, relevant labels, desired outcomes, and any accompanying screenshots.

As a member of the GitHub community, your participation is essential. While we can't promise that every suggestion will be implemented, we want to emphasize that your feedback is instrumental in guiding our decisions and priorities.

Thank you once again for your contribution to making GitHub even better! We're grateful for your ongoing support and collaboration in shaping the future of our platform. ⭐

[im-shubh]

Great question! Here's how you can approach this:

1. Setting Target Amounts:
It's generally a good practice to set target amounts for each token pair, especially if the value fluctuations between pairs (like ETH-USDT and USDT-DAI) can differ significantly. By setting token-specific targets, you give users more clarity on which pool is close to reaching its target.

2. Refund Logic:
For refunds, you can calculate refunds based on the ratio of deposited amount to the total raised in that token pair. Make sure your contract holds the deposited funds in a secure manner (like a vault or escrow pattern) and only releases them if the target is met.

3. User Trust:
To build trust, you can implement transparency features, such as:

A public dashboard showing live progress toward the funding targets.
Auditable smart contracts that clearly define the refund mechanism.
Provide users with transaction receipts showing their contributions and potential refund eligibility.
Consider optimizing gas costs by batching token deposits/withdrawals when interacting with the contract, and always run internal and external security audits to ensure the contract's integrity.

[im-shubh]

Setting Target Amounts:
It’s generally more flexible to handle the total deposits across all tokens rather than setting individual targets for each token pair. However, setting token-specific targets can be beneficial if the tokens have significantly different values or are used in different contexts (e.g., stablecoins vs. volatile assets). If you go with a total deposit approach, you can dynamically calculate contributions in a unified token value (like USD) using price oracles to normalize different tokens.

Refund Logic:
When handling refunds, consider implementing a proportional refund system. For example, if a target isn’t met, users can receive a refund relative to their contribution in each token. You can calculate this based on the ratio of each user’s deposit to the total raised for that token pair. Another approach is to lock deposits until a pool reaches its target. If a pool is underfunded by the end of the IFO, all deposits in that pool are refunded in full.

[ebndev]

Please see this comment for reference to why this discussion was closed and locked. Thanks!