Add DYM to Transaction Fee Whitelist

This proposal adds DYM to the list of fee tokens able to be used on Osmosis.

This allows users whose only interaction with the Cosmos ecosystem is via Dymension to be able to transact for the first time on Osmosis.

About Dymension

Dymension is a decentralized Delegated Proof-of-Stake L1 blockchain secured by the DYM token. It is custom built to provide RollApps with security, interoperability, and liquidity .

Dymension is akin to an internet service provider. It serves as a decentralized router that connects RollApps to the crypto economy. Dymension facilitates the vertical integration of modular blockchains in which network and liquidity bootstrapping is coupled in one user experience reducing the amount of time to deploy a blockchain to as little as a few minutes.

Target On-Chain Date: 8th February 2024

Note: This proposal is going on chain without the usual forum waiting period. This is prompted by reports of difficulty for users receiving the DYM airdrop trading on Osmosis. As DYM is one of the highest volume assets on Osmosis currently, smoothing the onboarding flow for new entrants to the Cosmos ecosystem as quickly as possible is preferred.


In earlier cases we opted for a longer period of showing that the interest in the asset would hold. But I think this one has already shown such a power that it is more like an exceptional case, just like TIA was.

Ok for me on this one.

1 Like

Stakecito just voted yes on this.

I don’t know if this level of update is really needed for simple proposals like this. Imagine if all 150 validators posted a large flyer for every single prop they voted on…

I’m not saying it isn’t allowed by any means, just something to consider.
Also it might be actually counterproductive - when there is an important discussion where good input is crucial, people may just scroil past the comment here because repetative information becomes background noise after a time.

I mean, it’s not like if you said it isn’t allowed, that would prevent me from doing so since there isn’t a rule on how to update community on gov proposals.

Also, if other validators did this I couldn’t care less. They choose how to communicate their decisions.

In any case, and as you can see, I only did that once for this proposal as I’m experimenting on how best to communicate with our delegators since I just assumed a new gov lead role.

I do agree with @maxpower on this one.

The forum is for discussing proposals in general before they go on-chain or when they are on-chain (or even passed governance) regarding the content of the proposal. To track what a validator voted we have different routes (explorers or social media channels).

Respectfully, y’all need to chill out. I literally just said it was a one time thing as I was experimenting on how best to communicate as someone new to this.

There is literally no need to further the debate. We have tons of engagement on our channels anyway and will be using them.

1 Like

If you look at my history of commenting even in this forum, you’ll notice that linking to Twitter is something I’ve always done. I link to my own tweets, I link to other people’s tweets. It’s very innocent.

I can see that my joining a validator now makes that somewhat unacceptable and so whatever lol

We let the “yes” comments slide when folks are commenting because they think they’ll get an airdrop somehow.

Validators posting their votes on standard proposals can get a bit annoying but if every validator did this then at least we would know that validators were at least visiting the discussion pages and potentially would be more likely to be actively reading the forums.

Congrats on the new post Winfred!

1 Like

Thanks Johnny! :partying_face:

By the way, I have no qualms annoying a few individuals if it means we communicate better :joy:

Absolutely no qualms.

With that said, I’ve established that our own network of channels is the most effective way of doing so and we’ll be using them instead :slightly_smiling_face:

It was not directed at you joining a validator :slight_smile:
If the links to Twitter posts are adding new information or insights to the content (which your links in general are), then they are surely welcomed!

1 Like

I’m also not sure if “better communication’” involves intentionally annoying people by announcing things they don’t really need to know about either way.
I’m only speaking from experience, you aren’t the first validator to do this over the years. I was trying to be polite about it and give some constructive feedback. You do you though.

I’m not going to respond to this chat any further. I said what I said.