This sounds reasonable to me.
Would it be helpful to include the swap amount when a swap fails?
Could failing because the swap amounts are too small to find a route with reasonable fees. We reserve only 1% for routing fees and the small payments <50 sats are paying >2% fees assuming >1 sat fees.
I manually tested with 1000 sat mint/melts with those mints that failed and works flawlessly. nostr:nprofile1qqs9pk20ctv9srrg9vr354p03v0rrgsqkpggh2u45va77zz4mu5p6ccpzemhxue69uhk2er9dchxummnw3ezumrpdejz7qgkwaehxw309a5xjum59ehx7um5wghxcctwvshszrnhwden5te0dehhxtnvdakz7qrxnfk
Discussion
Another thing that could be done is to open channels to the other mints so there are no routing fees, although it requires some extra capital.
I don't think this is a reasonable expectation especially if we account for new mints coming online in the future
It could work if mint operators agreed to team up and open zero fee routing channels between each other. If each mint had at least 2 such channels to other mints, all routing between mints would be free.
Added bonus is that channel rebalancing between mints would be free too.
I’m in for this. Where do we connect to negotiate the channels?
Some mint runners list their contact details which you can find from the auditor
Yes I think that would be helpful. Either that or raise the default swap amount?
I'll include it in the bot reporting but calle controls the actual audit.
Amounts are now included
