feat(pool): add paginated transaction history

[chico10117]

Fixes #29

I am requesting consideration for the crypto bounty associated with this issue.

What changed

• Added a pool transaction history section to the pool page.
• Decodes PoolDeposit, PoolWithdrawal, PoolPayIn, and PoolPayOut logs in one bounded provider query.
• Loads older history in 10,000-block windows with an exact block/log cursor, so pagination does not duplicate events or skip other events from the same block.
• Shows transaction type, asset, market, amount, pool balance, buffer balance, user, timestamp, and explorer link.
• Added an IntersectionObserver trigger plus a visible Load more fallback.
• Deduplicates appended pages by transaction hash and log index.

Validation

• npm ci
• npm run build passed with the repository's pinned dependencies.
• git diff --check passed.
• Read-only Arbitrum smoke check resolved the current Pool contract and successfully queried the four event topics over a bounded 10,000-block range. That range currently returned zero events, but the contract and topic query decoded without RPC errors.

The build output contains the repository's pre-existing Svelte accessibility/style warnings; no new build error was introduced.

Payout can be provided in a supported crypto rail after maintainer acceptance and merge, as described in the issue.

[chico10117]

The branch is ready for review. The local pinned-dependency build passes; the only reported check is the repository Vercel deployment with an upstream Account is blocked failure, matching the existing pool-history PRs (#127, #182, #203, #263).

[chico10117]

The only reported status on this PR head is the repository Vercel check, failing with "Account is blocked"; there are no GitHub Actions check runs or code-test failures. I also confirmed the same Vercel status on older pool-history PRs (#127, #182, #203, and #263), which points to an existing Vercel account or integration issue rather than this diff. The local pinned-dependency build passes. If the preview deployment is not required for this change, could you review or merge with that check overridden, or let me know what Vercel-side evidence is needed?