Default the ask floor to break-even so omission is safe - #13
Merged
Conversation
`--min-ask` existed but was optional, which meant the guard only applied when someone remembered it. It got forgotten: a below-cost ask sat resting, filled, and locked in a realized loss — the failure mode the flag was added to prevent. The floor now defaults to the position's own break-even, computed from its `costBasis` and the property's published fees via the same `venue_fees`/`ask_for` that `account breakeven` owns (both made pub rather than copied — a second implementation of fee math is how these drift). An explicit `--min-ask` still wins, and `--allow-below-cost` is the deliberate opt-out. Priced off the AMM buy rate, the dearer acquisition, so the floor stays conservative. No position means no basis, so no floor is inferred rather than inventing one. Verified live: a $63.00 ask on a position with a $69.12 break-even is refused with no flags passed, and proceeds under --allow-below-cost. Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01J7bz8aijn2Uwv1yF5rUenW
piekstra-dev
approved these changes
Jul 29, 2026
piekstra-dev
left a comment
piekstra-dev
left a comment
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Automated PR Review
Reviewed commit: d4f4c4a602e6
Profile: reviewer - Posting as: piekstra-dev
Summary
| Severity | Findings |
|---|---|
| blocking | 0 |
| major | 0 |
| minor | 0 |
| nits | 0 |
0 PR discussion threads considered. 0 summarized; 0 resolved.
Completed in 33s | $0.48 | claude-sonnet-5 | cr 0.10.268
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Model | claude-sonnet-5 |
| Reviewers | unavailable |
| Engine | claude_cli · claude-sonnet-5 |
| Reviewed by | cr · piekstra-dev |
| Duration | 33s wall · 30s compute |
| Cost | $0.48 |
| Tokens | 12 in / 1.8k out |
Per-workstream usage
| Workstream | Model | In | Out | Cache read | Cache create | Cost | Duration |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| orchestrator-selection | claude-sonnet-5 | 6 | 1.4k | 21.7k | 34.7k | $0.24 | 20s |
| orchestrator-rollup | claude-sonnet-5 | 6 | 376 | 35.2k | 38.5k | $0.25 | 9s |
piekstra
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 29, 2026
Both rails in this release exist because the missing guard actually cost money on a live account, not because they seemed prudent: - `quote recenter|provision`: `--min-ask` now DEFAULTS to the position's break-even (#13). It was optional, so it only applied when remembered — and it got forgotten: a below-cost ask sat resting, filled, and locked in a loss. - `amm swap`: slippage bounds are checked against a fresh quote and refused above 5% (#14). `--max-usdc` was passed through unexamined, so a hand-rounded $56 on a ~$51 quote authorised ~9% slippage in silence. `--max-slippage-pct` derives the bound instead of asking anyone to guess. Both fire under --force, which is where they matter: no prompt is shown, so a loose value would otherwise pass unseen. Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01J7bz8aijn2Uwv1yF5rUenW
piekstra
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 30, 2026
`--min-ask` existed but was optional, which meant the guard only applied when someone remembered it. It got forgotten: a below-cost ask sat resting, filled, and locked in a realized loss — the failure mode the flag was added to prevent. The floor now defaults to the position's own break-even, computed from its `costBasis` and the property's published fees via the same `venue_fees`/`ask_for` that `account breakeven` owns (both made pub rather than copied — a second implementation of fee math is how these drift). An explicit `--min-ask` still wins, and `--allow-below-cost` is the deliberate opt-out. Priced off the AMM buy rate, the dearer acquisition, so the floor stays conservative. No position means no basis, so no floor is inferred rather than inventing one. Verified live: a $49.00 ask on a position with a $54.40 break-even is refused with no flags passed, and proceeds under --allow-below-cost.
piekstra
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 30, 2026
Both rails in this release exist because the missing guard actually cost money on a live account, not because they seemed prudent: - `quote recenter|provision`: `--min-ask` now DEFAULTS to the position's break-even (#13). It was optional, so it only applied when remembered — and it got forgotten: a below-cost ask sat resting, filled, and locked in a loss. - `amm swap`: slippage bounds are checked against a fresh quote and refused above 5% (#14). `--max-usdc` was passed through unexamined, so a hand-rounded $56 on a ~$51 quote authorised ~9% slippage in silence. `--max-slippage-pct` derives the bound instead of asking anyone to guess. Both fire under --force, which is where they matter: no prompt is shown, so a loose value would otherwise pass unseen.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Why
--min-askalready existed — but it was optional, so the guard only applied when someone remembered to pass it. It got forgotten, and the exact failure it was built to prevent happened: a below-cost ask sat resting on a live account, filled, and locked in a realized loss.A safety rail you have to remember isn't a rail.
What changed
--min-asknow defaults to the position's own break-even, computed from itscostBasisand the property's published fees. So a quote can no longer offer to sell at a loss because a flag was omitted.--min-askstill wins.--allow-below-costis the deliberate opt-out.Reuse, not a second copy
The math comes from the
venue_fees/ask_forthataccount breakevenalready owns (both madepub). Keeping a second implementation of fee math inquote.rsis precisely how these two would drift apart — the same concern raised on #10, where the rails and fetch/apply paths had to be converged.Testing
New unit test asserts the floor applies with no
--min-askgiven, that a price at or above it proceeds, and that--allow-below-costdrops it. All 93 tests,fmt, andclippy -D warningsclean.Verified against a live account: a
$63.00ask on a position whose break-even is$54.40is refused with no flags passed, and proceeds under--allow-below-cost.