Separating the Vault status in the vault table: accepting issues requests and collateral levels

[nud3l]

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe. In the Vault table( e.g., https://kintsugi.interlay.io/dashboard/vaults), we show a "Status" column that mixes collateral levels and the Vault's setting to accept issue requests. However, this does not work well as we have combined states such as (ACCEPT_ISSUE_FALSE && BELOW_SECURE_THRESHOLD).

In the screenshot below, Vault a3fxCi...669v6eN is below the secure threshold but also not accepting new requests.

Describe the solution you'd like

I would like to adjust the table as follows:

1. Collateralization column currently shows the actual collateralization with a color coding.

• Add the worded collateral status as an enum that says one of "Above Secure Threshold", "Above Premium Redeem Threshold", "Above Liquidation Threshold", or "Liquidated"
• Link in the tooltip to the collateralization threshold docs: https://docs.interlay.io/#/vault/overview?id=collateral-thresholds

2. Rename the Status column to Accepting new iBTC and only track if Vaults accept new issue request or not. Possible states: "Active", "Inactive", "Liquidated".

Describe alternatives you've considered If adding the worded version of the collateral thresholds as proposed in point 1 above makes the table cluttered, possibly this can just be added in an extra column

Additional context n/a

[spazcoin]

1. I personally prefer the "Below XX threshold" form instead of "Above XX threshold" because that's what people worry more about. Saying "Above XX threshold" requires people to be intimately familiar with the different possible thresholds and states in order to know what negative state they're already in. ("Above Liquidation Threshold" sounds fine. But "Below Premium Redeem Threshold" immediately tells you Uh Oh!)

[spazcoin]

2. Please incorporate the vaults' "custom secure collateralization threshold" into considerations everywhere in the UI because it changes how the vault behaves. Specifically for this discussion, if custom threshold is 300% and vault is at 270% then a status of "below custom secure threshold" is more important than "above secure threshold" which is irrelevant (vault won't issue any more).

[spazcoin]

3. A single status column instead of two might still be ok. Basically what users need to know is "can I mint iBTC with this vault? If not why not?". I'd prioritize "below threshold" states over "Issuing Disabled" states. So I think the following states would be sufficient:

• "Active" or "Issuing Disabled" if vault collateral above 260% and custom threshold.
• "Below custom secure threshold"
• "Below secure threshold"
• "Below premium redeem threshold"
• "Liquidated" -- btw might be useful to flag why, like collateralization vs "theft"

[github-actions[bot]]

Running Lighthouse audit...