code.vegaprotocol.io/vega@v0.79.0/core/integration/features/amm/0090-VAMM-sparse-auction.feature

Feature: vAMM rebasing when created or amended

  Background:
    Given the average block duration is "1"
    And the margin calculator named "margin-calculator-1":
      | search factor | initial factor | release factor |
      | 1.2           | 1.5            | 1.7            |
    And the log normal risk model named "log-normal-risk-model":
      | risk aversion | tau                   | mu | r   | sigma |
      | 0.001         | 0.0011407711613050422 | 0  | 0.9 | 3.0   |
    And the liquidity monitoring parameters:
      | name       | triggering ratio | time window | scaling factor |
      | lqm-params | 1.00             | 20s         | 1              |
      
    And the following network parameters are set:
      | name                                                | value |
      | market.value.windowLength                           | 60s   |
      | network.markPriceUpdateMaximumFrequency             | 0s    |
      | limits.markets.maxPeggedOrders                      | 6     |
      | market.auction.minimumDuration                      | 1     |
      | market.fee.factors.infrastructureFee                | 0.001 |
      | market.fee.factors.makerFee                         | 0.004 |
      | spam.protection.max.stopOrdersPerMarket             | 5     |
      | market.liquidity.equityLikeShareFeeFraction         | 1     |
	    | market.amm.minCommitmentQuantum                     | 1     |
      | market.liquidity.bondPenaltyParameter               | 0.2   |
      | market.liquidity.stakeToCcyVolume                   | 1     |
      | market.liquidity.successorLaunchWindowLength        | 1h    |
      | market.liquidity.sla.nonPerformanceBondPenaltySlope | 0   |
      | market.liquidity.sla.nonPerformanceBondPenaltyMax   | 0.6   |
      | validators.epoch.length                             | 10s   |
      | market.liquidity.earlyExitPenalty                   | 0.25  |
      | market.liquidity.maximumLiquidityFeeFactorLevel     | 0.25  |
    #risk factor short:3.5569036
    #risk factor long:0.801225765
    And the following assets are registered:
      | id  | decimal places |
      | USD | 0              |
    And the fees configuration named "fees-config-1":
      | maker fee | infrastructure fee |
      | 0.0004    | 0.001              |

    And the liquidity sla params named "SLA-22":
      | price range | commitment min time fraction | performance hysteresis epochs | sla competition factor |
      | 0.5         | 0.6                          | 1                             | 1.0                    |

    And the oracle spec for settlement data filtering data from "0xCAFECAFE19" named "termination-oracle":
      | property         | type         | binding         | decimals |
      | prices.ETH.value | TYPE_INTEGER | settlement data | 0        |

    And the oracle spec for trading termination filtering data from "0xCAFECAFE19" named "termination-oracle":
      | property           | type         | binding             |
      | trading.terminated | TYPE_BOOLEAN | trading termination |

    And the markets:
      | id        | quote name | asset | liquidity monitoring | risk model            | margin calculator   | auction duration | fees          | price monitoring | data source config     | linear slippage factor | quadratic slippage factor | sla params |
      | ETH/MAR22 | USD        | USD   | lqm-params           | log-normal-risk-model | margin-calculator-1 | 2                | fees-config-1 | default-none     | termination-oracle     | 1e0                    | 0                         | SLA-22     |

    # Setting up the accounts and vAMM submission now is part of the background, because we'll be running scenarios 0090-VAMM-006 through 0090-VAMM-014 on this setup
    Given the parties deposit on asset's general account the following amount:
      | party  | asset | amount  |
      | lp1    | USD   | 1000000 |
      | lp2    | USD   | 1000000 |
      | lp3    | USD   | 1000000 |
      | party1 | USD   | 1000000 |
      | party2 | USD   | 1000000 |
      | party3 | USD   | 1000000 |
      | party4 | USD   | 1000000 |
      | party5 | USD   | 1000000 |
      | vamm1  | USD   | 1000000 |
      | vamm2  | USD   | 1000000 |   

  @VAMM
  Scenario: Uncrossing with one low-volume AMM
   Then the parties submit the following AMM:
      | party | market id | amount | slippage | base | lower bound | upper bound | proposed fee |
      | vamm1 | ETH/MAR22 | 1000   | 0.05     | 100  | 90          | 120         | 0.03         |
   Then the AMM pool status should be:
      | party | market id | amount | status          | base | lower bound | upper bound | 
      | vamm1 | ETH/MAR22 | 1000   | STATUS_ACTIVE   | 100  | 90          | 120         | 

    Then the parties submit the following AMM:
      | party | market id | amount | slippage | base | lower bound | upper bound | proposed fee |
      | vamm2 | ETH/MAR22 | 1000   | 0.05     | 90   | 80          | 140         | 0.03         |
   Then the AMM pool status should be:
      | party | market id | amount | status        | base | lower bound | upper bound | 
      | vamm2 | ETH/MAR22 | 1000 | STATUS_ACTIVE   | 90   | 80          | 140         | 


    # even though their bounds are crossed, the sparse-ness means their volume it not crossed
    And the market data for the market "ETH/MAR22" should be:
      | mark price | trading mode                  | best bid price | best offer price | best bid volume | best offer volume |
      | 0          | TRADING_MODE_OPENING_AUCTION  | 98             | 103              | 1               | 1                 |


     # amend the second one so that it has more volume now and they should cross
     When the parties amend the following AMM:
      | party | market id | amount  | slippage | base | lower bound | upper bound | proposed fee |
      | vamm2 | ETH/MAR22 | 10000   | 0.05     | 90   | 80          | 140         | 0.03         |
    Then the AMM pool status should be:
      | party | market id | amount | status        | base | lower bound | upper bound | 
      | vamm2 | ETH/MAR22 | 10000 | STATUS_ACTIVE | 90   | 80          |  140        |

    And the market data for the market "ETH/MAR22" should be:
      | mark price | trading mode                  | best bid price | best offer price | best bid volume | best offer volume |
      | 0          | TRADING_MODE_OPENING_AUCTION  | 98             | 92               | 1               | 1                 |

    # uncross!
    When the opening auction period ends for market "ETH/MAR22"
    And the market data for the market "ETH/MAR22" should be:
      | mark price | trading mode             | best bid price | best offer price | best bid volume | best offer volume |
      | 95         | TRADING_MODE_CONTINUOUS  | 94             | 95               | 1               | 1                 |

  
@VAMM
  Scenario: Uncrossing orders entirely within a low volume AMM's spread
   Then the parties submit the following AMM:
      | party | market id | amount | slippage | base | lower bound | upper bound | proposed fee |
      | vamm1 | ETH/MAR22 | 1000   | 0.05     | 100  | 90          | 120         | 0.03         |
   Then the AMM pool status should be:
      | party | market id | amount | status          | base | lower bound | upper bound | 
      | vamm1 | ETH/MAR22 | 1000   | STATUS_ACTIVE   | 100  | 90          | 120         | 

    And the market data for the market "ETH/MAR22" should be:
      | mark price | trading mode                  | best bid price | best offer price | best bid volume | best offer volume |
      | 0          | TRADING_MODE_OPENING_AUCTION  | 98             | 105              | 1               | 1                 |

    # lets splatter some orders in the AMM's spread
    And the parties place the following orders:
      | party  | market id | side | volume | price | resulting trades | type       | tif     | reference |
      | party1 | ETH/MAR22 | sell | 5      | 99     | 0                | TYPE_LIMIT | TIF_GTC | lp1-b     |
      | party1 | ETH/MAR22 | sell | 5      | 100    | 0                | TYPE_LIMIT | TIF_GTC | lp1-b     |
      | party2 | ETH/MAR22 | buy  | 5      | 101    | 0                | TYPE_LIMIT | TIF_GTC | lp1-b     |
      | party2 | ETH/MAR22 | buy  | 10     | 104    | 0                | TYPE_LIMIT | TIF_GTC | lp1-b     |
    
    And the market data for the market "ETH/MAR22" should be:
      | mark price | trading mode                  | best bid price | best offer price | best bid volume | best offer volume |
      | 0          | TRADING_MODE_OPENING_AUCTION  | 104            | 99               | 10              | 5                 |


    # uncross! AMM should be unaffected
    When the opening auction period ends for market "ETH/MAR22"
    And the market data for the market "ETH/MAR22" should be:
      | mark price | trading mode             | best bid price | best offer price | best bid volume | best offer volume |
      | 102         | TRADING_MODE_CONTINUOUS  | 101            | 105              | 5               | 1                 |


    When the parties cancel all their orders for the markets:
      | party  | market id |
      | party1 | ETH/MAR22 |
      | party2 | ETH/MAR22 |

    Then the market data for the market "ETH/MAR22" should be:
      | mark price | trading mode             | best bid price | best offer price | best bid volume | best offer volume |
      | 102        | TRADING_MODE_CONTINUOUS  | 98             | 105              | 1               | 1                 |


@VAMM
  Scenario: Uncrossing orders with a low volume AMM
   Then the parties submit the following AMM:
      | party | market id | amount | slippage | base | lower bound | upper bound | proposed fee |
      | vamm1 | ETH/MAR22 | 1000   | 0.05     | 100  | 90          | 120         | 0.03         |
   Then the AMM pool status should be:
      | party | market id | amount | status          | base | lower bound | upper bound | 
      | vamm1 | ETH/MAR22 | 1000   | STATUS_ACTIVE   | 100  | 90          | 120         | 

    And the market data for the market "ETH/MAR22" should be:
      | mark price | trading mode                  | best bid price | best offer price | best bid volume | best offer volume |
      | 0          | TRADING_MODE_OPENING_AUCTION  | 98             | 105              | 1               | 1                 |

    And the parties place the following orders:
      | party  | market id | side | volume | price | resulting trades | type       | tif     | reference |
      | party1 | ETH/MAR22 | sell | 5      | 95    | 0                | TYPE_LIMIT | TIF_GTC | lp1-b     |
      | party2 | ETH/MAR22 | buy  | 5      | 91    | 0                | TYPE_LIMIT | TIF_GTC | lp1-b     |
    
    And the market data for the market "ETH/MAR22" should be:
      | mark price | trading mode                  | best bid price | best offer price | best bid volume | best offer volume |
      | 0          | TRADING_MODE_OPENING_AUCTION  | 98             | 95               | 1               | 5                 |


    # uncross! AMM should be unaffected
    When the opening auction period ends for market "ETH/MAR22"
    And the market data for the market "ETH/MAR22" should be:
      | mark price | trading mode             | best bid price | best offer price | best bid volume | best offer volume |
      | 95         | TRADING_MODE_CONTINUOUS  | 94             | 95               | 1               | 3                 |