# Adding Authz messages into allowed ICA messages list
**URL:** https://forum.osmosis.zone/t/adding-authz-messages-into-allowed-ica-messages-list/2573
**Category:** Proposal Discussion
**Tags:** passed
**Created:** [March 18, 2024, 12:56am UTC](https://forum.osmosis.zone/t/adding-authz-messages-into-allowed-ica-messages-list/2573 "2024-03-18T00:56:11Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@RoboMcGobo](https://forum.osmosis.zone/u/RoboMcGobo)
#### Post date: [March 18, 2024, 12:56am UTC](https://forum.osmosis.zone/t/adding-authz-messages-into-allowed-ica-messages-list/2573/1 "2024-03-18T00:56:11Z")
Context:
stDYDX is one of Stride’s largest LSTs, with ~$10M in TVL, and a potential inflow of 20M DYDX soon. Because DYDX yield is paid in USDC, the Stride protocol needs to swap USDC to DYDX before reinvesting. Stride is redesigning how USDC → DYDX swaps work, in order to process more swaps with less slippage.
As a result, Stride needs the following two AllowMessages added into the allowed ICA messages list:
```auto
/cosmos.authz.v1beta1.MsgGrant
/cosmos.authz.v1beta1.MsgRevoke
```
A proposal to add the AllowMessages is being processed on Osmosis testnet. If successful, a mainnet proposal will follow shortly.
---
### Author:  [@LeonoorsCryptoman](https://forum.osmosis.zone/u/LeonoorsCryptoman)
#### Post date: [March 18, 2024, 3:02pm UTC](https://forum.osmosis.zone/t/adding-authz-messages-into-allowed-ica-messages-list/2573/2 "2024-03-18T15:02:32Z")
Just to get it clear; this would give addresses the Authz-authorisation to set rights for other addresses, right?
Is this limited to addresses which are clearly owned by the owner of the address? I am not entirely sure how it works 🙂
---
### Author:  [@RoboMcGobo](https://forum.osmosis.zone/u/RoboMcGobo)
#### Post date: [March 18, 2024, 3:28pm UTC](https://forum.osmosis.zone/t/adding-authz-messages-into-allowed-ica-messages-list/2573/3 "2024-03-18T15:28:44Z")
Update: The proposal is on chain.
> **[Mintscan](https://www.mintscan.io/osmosis/proposals/755)**
>
> Interchain explorer and analytics powered by Cosmostation.
Note, this proposal is time-sensitive to accommodate an upcoming chain upgrade for Stride, so we couldn’t wait the entire 3 day discussion period. We discussed with the Osmosis team and they ultimately thought it’d be ok, given that we had already tested this proposal on testnet. See below for the testnet proposal, and if anyone has questions, I’m happy to answer them!
> **[Osmosis Testnet | Add authz as ICA host allowed message](https://testnet.daodao.zone/gov/osmosis/proposals/181)**
>
> Add authz as ICA host allowed message
---
### Author:  [@RoboMcGobo](https://forum.osmosis.zone/u/RoboMcGobo)
#### Post date: [March 18, 2024, 3:31pm UTC](https://forum.osmosis.zone/t/adding-authz-messages-into-allowed-ica-messages-list/2573/4 "2024-03-18T15:31:36Z")
Basically, this would give interchain accounts on Osmosis the right to grant permissions to other wallets.
The usecase for Stride is that the interchain account will be able to grant authz permissions to a wallet running a script that randomizes swap times on the ICA’s behalf. This is being done in order to prevent the ICA swaps from being frontrun, which should maximize the value received by stDYDX stakers.
---
### Author:  [@LeonoorsCryptoman](https://forum.osmosis.zone/u/LeonoorsCryptoman)
#### Post date: [March 18, 2024, 6:32pm UTC](https://forum.osmosis.zone/t/adding-authz-messages-into-allowed-ica-messages-list/2573/5 "2024-03-18T18:32:41Z")
> [@RoboMcGobo](#):
>
> The usecase for Stride is that the interchain account will be able to grant authz permissions to a wallet running a script that randomizes swap times on the ICA’s behalf.
This is not possible with the ICA-account? Or not desirable? (side note: I am not as familiar with ICA as others around here)
---
### Author:  [@maxpower](https://forum.osmosis.zone/u/maxpower)
#### Post date: [March 18, 2024, 7:46pm UTC](https://forum.osmosis.zone/t/adding-authz-messages-into-allowed-ica-messages-list/2573/6 "2024-03-18T19:46:12Z")
edited until further research 👀
---
### Author:  [@Lawrence](https://forum.osmosis.zone/u/Lawrence)
#### Post date: [March 18, 2024, 10:41pm UTC](https://forum.osmosis.zone/t/adding-authz-messages-into-allowed-ica-messages-list/2573/7 "2024-03-18T22:41:27Z")
/cosmos.authz.v1beta1.MsgGrant
/cosmos.authz.v1beta1.MsgRevoke
/cosmos.authz.v1beta1.MsgGrant
/cosmos.authz.v1beta1.MsgRevoke
---
### Author:  [@LeonoorsCryptoman](https://forum.osmosis.zone/u/LeonoorsCryptoman)
#### Post date: [March 19, 2024, 7:17am UTC](https://forum.osmosis.zone/t/adding-authz-messages-into-allowed-ica-messages-list/2573/8 "2024-03-19T07:17:33Z")
> [@RoboMcGobo](#):
>
> Note, this proposal is time-sensitive to accommodate an upcoming chain upgrade for Stride, so we couldn’t wait the entire 3 day discussion period.
Can you elaborate on the time-sensitive part?
Since there is no chain upgrade planned currently?
So there is still room to postpone that one to comply with the way things are supposed to be done?
---
### Author:  [@Winfred](https://forum.osmosis.zone/u/Winfred)
#### Post date: [March 20, 2024, 12:55am UTC](https://forum.osmosis.zone/t/adding-authz-messages-into-allowed-ica-messages-list/2573/9 "2024-03-20T00:55:44Z")
There’s a prop that’s about to go onchain wrt to this. I imagine this is the cause of the time sensitivity.
Stakecito supports this proposal in its current state, given the circumstances.
---
### Author:  [@LeonoorsCryptoman](https://forum.osmosis.zone/u/LeonoorsCryptoman)
#### Post date: [March 20, 2024, 5:44am UTC](https://forum.osmosis.zone/t/adding-authz-messages-into-allowed-ica-messages-list/2573/10 "2024-03-20T05:44:46Z")
> [@Winfred](#):
>
> There’s a prop that’s about to go onchain wrt to this. I imagine this is the cause of the time sensitivity.
And that is the part which I find scary. So for a proposal that is NOT on chain yet (and can thus be delayed) we are ok with breaking agreements?
Surely not the way to go, because that effectively means that we are willing to let go of our principles because others are not willing to change their ways.
And maybe the risks are small on this one, but again… setting precedents is a very very bad habit.
---
### Author:  [@VK\_S16](https://forum.osmosis.zone/u/VK_S16)
#### Post date: [March 20, 2024, 7:26am UTC](https://forum.osmosis.zone/t/adding-authz-messages-into-allowed-ica-messages-list/2573/11 "2024-03-20T07:26:16Z")
If this proposal is time-sensitive and already had prior discussions with the core team, would be great if that information could be written in the governance proposals. Thanks.
---
### Author:  [@JohnnyWyles](https://forum.osmosis.zone/u/JohnnyWyles)
#### Post date: [March 20, 2024, 10:07am UTC](https://forum.osmosis.zone/t/adding-authz-messages-into-allowed-ica-messages-list/2573/12 "2024-03-20T10:07:02Z")
The previous ICA message proposals:
> [@Adding MsgCreateBalancerPool into Approved ICA Messages list](https://forum.osmosis.zone/t/adding-msgcreatebalancerpool-into-approved-ica-messages-list/163):
>
> Dear Osmosis Community, We humbly present this formal proposal, seeking the community’s approval for the integration of MsgCreateBalancerPool into the list of ICA approved messages on the Osmosis Mainnet. This crucial proposal endeavors to advance the Cosmos ecosystem by providing an efficient and secure method for facilitating liquidity creation and incentivizing community involvement. Background The growth of the Cosmos ecosystem has brought forth challenges common to emerging projects stri…
> [@Adding superfluid messages into allowed ICA messages list](https://forum.osmosis.zone/t/adding-superfluid-messages-into-allowed-ica-messages-list/365):
>
> UnUniFi team has built a yield aggregator strategy where it utilizes superfluid staking mechanism through ICA and would like to add superfluid module messages into allowed ICA messages list to get the product live on mainnet. This proposal grants permission to ICA accounts to execute superfluid module messages. Following messages will be allowed as part the proposal execution. - /osmosis.superfluid.MsgSuperfluidUndelegateAndUnbondLock - /osmosis.superfluid.MsgLockAndSuperfluidDeleg…
> [@Adding poolmanager messages into allowed ICA messages list](https://forum.osmosis.zone/t/adding-poolmanager-messages-into-allowed-ica-messages-list/402):
>
> The poolmanager module acts as a swap entry point for any pool model on the Osmosis chain. It is responsible for routing swaps across various pools and also performs pool-id management for any on-chain pool. The module accommodates a diverse range of pool implementations, from standard constant product pools (like x/gamm) to the newer Supercharged (x/concentrated-liquidity) pools. A notable feature is that interactions with the Supercharged pools are exclusively facilitated via the poolmanager m…
Had absolutely zero contention and were even treated as annoying proposals that we should get out of the way in one bulk proposal. These ones were missed and so there is no point following a 3 day period that was intended to modify contentious proposals before they became indelible on chain.
---
### Author:  [@maxpower](https://forum.osmosis.zone/u/maxpower)
#### Post date: [March 20, 2024, 1:41pm UTC](https://forum.osmosis.zone/t/adding-authz-messages-into-allowed-ica-messages-list/2573/13 "2024-03-20T13:41:37Z")
What circumstances? What is the emergency here?
I don’t even necessarily agree with the current extended length of the discussion+voting period but I have seen other proposals shot down with this stated as the reason, so it should stand for anything non-standard.
---
### Author:  [@LeonoorsCryptoman](https://forum.osmosis.zone/u/LeonoorsCryptoman)
#### Post date: [March 20, 2024, 1:45pm UTC](https://forum.osmosis.zone/t/adding-authz-messages-into-allowed-ica-messages-list/2573/14 "2024-03-20T13:45:20Z")
> [@JohnnyWyles](#):
>
> These ones were missed and so there is no point following a 3 day period that was intended to modify contentious proposals before they became indelible on chain.
Then we should change our standards and agree on what kind of proposals are not subject to the 3-day period, just like we did with IBC-proposals and the updates for incentives.
But ignoring our agreed standards before we agree on creating an exception… not good.
---
### Author:  [@qwoyn](https://forum.osmosis.zone/u/qwoyn)
#### Post date: [March 20, 2024, 1:59pm UTC](https://forum.osmosis.zone/t/adding-authz-messages-into-allowed-ica-messages-list/2573/15 "2024-03-20T13:59:35Z")
I’m not sure what you mean regarding the MsgCreateBalancerPool. This message is required by the Qwoyn Network Aquifer module. If removed, it renders the module useless. Am willing to discuss further if you are trying to get rid of it. Also, its 8am for me so maybe I’m just reading this wrong.
---
### Author:  [@JohnnyWyles](https://forum.osmosis.zone/u/JohnnyWyles)
#### Post date: [March 20, 2024, 2:45pm UTC](https://forum.osmosis.zone/t/adding-authz-messages-into-allowed-ica-messages-list/2573/16 "2024-03-20T14:45:46Z")
Not trying to remove it at all! Just using it as an example of why this proposal skipped the forum discussion time.
---
### Author:  [@RoboMcGobo](https://forum.osmosis.zone/u/RoboMcGobo)
#### Post date: [March 20, 2024, 2:52pm UTC](https://forum.osmosis.zone/t/adding-authz-messages-into-allowed-ica-messages-list/2573/17 "2024-03-20T14:52:41Z")
To clarify, Stride contributors are working on a software upgrade that’s due to go on chain in a couple of days. The upgrade will directly leverage the messages being approved in this proposal.
The upgrade is highly time sensitive to accommodate a huge DYDX inflow into Stride (and consequently a huge inflow of trading volume on the DYDX / USDC pool on Osmosis). The messages need to be enabled before the upgrade starts attempting to use them, and it’s risky to put the upgrade on chain without knowing whether this proposal will pass.
Waiting the 3 days would have pushed back the timelines for Stride and dYdX to facilitate this inflow. As @JohnnyWyles mentioned, these proposals have historically been uncontentious, and enabling additional ICA messages is an extremely innocuous change.
Feel like we’re really making a mountain out of a molehill here.
---
### Author:  [@qwoyn](https://forum.osmosis.zone/u/qwoyn)
#### Post date: [March 20, 2024, 2:56pm UTC](https://forum.osmosis.zone/t/adding-authz-messages-into-allowed-ica-messages-list/2573/18 "2024-03-20T14:56:23Z")
Ahh ok, I knew I was just confused. Thanks!
---
### Author:  [@LeonoorsCryptoman](https://forum.osmosis.zone/u/LeonoorsCryptoman)
#### Post date: [March 20, 2024, 5:01pm UTC](https://forum.osmosis.zone/t/adding-authz-messages-into-allowed-ica-messages-list/2573/19 "2024-03-20T17:01:12Z")
> [@RoboMcGobo](#):
>
> Feel like we’re really making a mountain out of a molehill here.
No, we are trying to comply to agreements made in the past.
> [@RoboMcGobo](#):
>
> enabling additional ICA messages is an extremely innocuous change.
If so, why not have the conversation if these kind of proposals can be relieved from the 3-day forum-requirement?
---
### Author:  [@luisqa](https://forum.osmosis.zone/u/luisqa)
#### Post date: [March 22, 2024, 2:34pm UTC](https://forum.osmosis.zone/t/adding-authz-messages-into-allowed-ica-messages-list/2573/20 "2024-03-22T14:34:10Z")
I think we should have a discussion about the 3 day period and add ICA messages to the exception list if it seems its a non-issue.