Implemented the mainnet deployment scripts

[jalextowle]

Resolved Issues

Addresses: #976, https://github.com/spearbit-audits/delv-week-review/issues/2

Description

This PR adds the mainnet deployment scripts for the ElementDAO deployment and addresses the last remaining issues from Saw Mon.

Review Checklists

Please check each item before approving the pull request. While going
through the checklist, it is recommended to leave comments on items that are
referenced in the checklist to make sure that they are reviewed. If there are
multiple reviewers, copy the checklists into sections titled ## [Reviewer Name].
If the PR doesn't touch Solidity, the corresponding checklist can
be removed.

[[Reviewer Name]]

• Tokens
  • Do all approve calls use forceApprove?
  • Do all transfer calls use safeTransfer?
  • Do all transferFrom calls use msg.sender as the from address?
    • If not, is the function access restricted to prevent unauthorized
      token spend?
• Low-level calls (call, delegatecall, staticcall, transfer, send)
  • Is the returned success boolean checked to handle failed calls?
  • If using delegatecall, are there strict access controls on the
    addresses that can be called? It shouldn't be possible to delegatecall
    arbitrary addresses, so the list of possible targets should either be
    immutable or tightly controlled by an admin.
• Reentrancy
  • Are functions that make external calls or transfer ether marked as nonReentrant?
    • If not, is there documentation that explains why reentrancy is
      not a concern or how it's mitigated?
• Gas Optimizations
  • Is the logic as simple as possible?
  • Are the storage values that are used repeatedly cached in stack or
    memory variables?
  • If loops are used, are there guards in place to avoid out-of-gas
    issues?
• Visibility
  • Are all payable functions restricted to avoid stuck ether?
• Math
  • Is all of the arithmetic checked or guarded by if-statements that will
    catch underflows?
  • If Safe functions are altered, are potential underflows and
    overflows caught so that a failure flag can be thrown?
  • Are all of the rounding directions clearly documented?
• Testing
  • Are there new or updated unit or integration tests?
  • Do the tests cover the happy paths?
  • Do the tests cover the unhappy paths?
  • Are there an adequate number of fuzz tests to ensure that we are
    covering the full input space?

[github-actions]

Hyperdrive Gas Benchmark

Benchmark suite	Current: d5eedc7	Previous: 7bc914f	Deviation	Status
addLiquidity: min	33937 gas	33937 gas	0%	🟰
addLiquidity: avg	155907 gas	155757 gas	0.0963%	🚨
addLiquidity: max	429262 gas	429262 gas	0%	🟰
checkpoint: min	40316 gas	40316 gas	0%	🟰
checkpoint: avg	144712 gas	144703 gas	0.0062%	🚨
checkpoint: max	255940 gas	255940 gas	0%	🟰
closeLong: min	31361 gas	31361 gas	0%	🟰
closeLong: avg	135739 gas	135769 gas	-0.0221%	✅
closeLong: max	2539376 gas	2539376 gas	0%	🟰
closeShort: min	31327 gas	31327 gas	0%	🟰
closeShort: avg	131099 gas	131221 gas	-0.0930%	✅
closeShort: max	354418 gas	271348 gas	30.6138%	🚨
initialize: min	31349 gas	31349 gas	0%	🟰
initialize: avg	333469 gas	333439 gas	0.0090%	🚨
initialize: max	399746 gas	399978 gas	-0.0580%	✅
openLong: min	33370 gas	33370 gas	0%	🟰
openLong: avg	172927 gas	173218 gas	-0.1680%	✅
openLong: max	333831 gas	334062 gas	-0.0691%	✅
openShort: min	33936 gas	33936 gas	0%	🟰
openShort: avg	168431 gas	168476 gas	-0.0267%	✅
openShort: max	415036 gas	415110 gas	-0.0178%	✅
redeemWithdrawalShares: min	31251 gas	31251 gas	0%	🟰
redeemWithdrawalShares: avg	75019 gas	75114 gas	-0.1265%	✅
redeemWithdrawalShares: max	305459 gas	305698 gas	-0.0782%	✅
removeLiquidity: min	31301 gas	31301 gas	0%	🟰
removeLiquidity: avg	215338 gas	215048 gas	0.1349%	🚨
removeLiquidity: max	403858 gas	403641 gas	0.0538%	🚨

This comment was automatically generated by workflow using github-action-benchmark.