Layne Haber

are we okay with closing this? remediation work is done, documentation likely needs to be updated still. should that be a separate issue?

Are there other router liquidity convenience methods we should add? Specifically, I'm thinking we may want one that is able to `removeLiquidityAndSwap` so the `recipient` always receives the adopted asset...

> Should it just be an override for `removeLiquidity` that has a boolean for `receiveAdopted`? Seems less confusing that way. Sure, could be. Are there any other, or just these...

Also, why can't we do the second as an additional layer via multicall? Then you should have the same UX of "1 onchain transaction" (just trying to keep this minimally...

Sux cus we want #2232

Results from after #2060 fix: * `transfers` object now has correct addresses in both structs, but the object is still mutating form: ``` app state installed: { "state": { "finalized":...

Can close this as of node 0.0.51 @cf19drofxots

User story: - User receives a payment that is not fully collateralized - User also has $5 in their channel to spend - Hub begins a deposit to collateralize users...

I'm noticing the same issue, here are some (ideally helpul) logs of helpful accounts: ```typescript ********** PRE WITHDRAW BALANCES: { "multisigBalance": "34989569600000000000", "recipientBalance": "64999160000000000000", "accountBalance": "6559280000000000", "userFreeBalance": "4998856960000000000" } info:...

the full transaction object: ```typescript { "hash": "0x5809dd0cce631e75d4dfba72c9727247be89c1bfacad37be3f3cc6c2656c28c1", "blockHash": "0x7b7fab5d193c1fd12c0b20654448168f37adb8eedef4172989f250bca6191dce", "blockNumber": 44, "transactionIndex": 0, "confirmations": 1, "from": "0xe838a8C673F46F2B1a9f69dB8368ee65e5cf9123", "gasPrice": { "_hex": "0x4a817c800" }, "gasLimit": { "_hex": "0x493e0" }, "to": "0x35936CD28231e22fB68fB556e8121191abdCEEb5",...