Temperature Check: Add a permissioned address to manage the Fee Token Whitelist

General
1

Note: This forum post gauges sentiment for an upcoming feature in the imminent v24 software upgrade. The v24 upgrade proposal would ratify this unless feedback on this post signals that it is contentious and requires a separate vote.

This signals the addition of a permissioned address, osmo17eqe9dpglajwd48r65lasq3mftra5q4uxce525htyvjdp0q037vqpurhve, that can directly add and remove from the fee token whitelist rather than requiring the full governance process to take place.

Background

The txfee module manages the transaction fee whitelist. This list specifies a denom to be accepted and an OSMO pool to use as a spot price for the quantity of that denom to accept. Any transaction fees paid in these denoms are collected in the module address and converted into OSMO for distribution to stakers at epoch.

This allows a wide range of assets to be used as gas fees on Osmosis, while preserving a use of OSMO as the underlying gas token of the Osmosis blockchain.

The methodology for populating this was initially laid out in Proposal 560, which prioritized accepting all tokens with functional liquidity and minimizing any potential abuse of an alternative fee token when subject to a multi-day governance turnaround time.

The addition of this permissioned address allows these restrictions to be relaxed, as any abuse can lead to the retraction of the permissions for this token on a much shorter timeline.

The fee token list was last updated in January 2024 with Proposal 717, bringing the list of alternative fee tokens for Osmosis to 128.

The addition of this permissioned address allows new listings to be quickly added as fee tokens, drastically improving cross-chain functionality, this requirement has previously led to the expedited Proposal 674 to add TIA and Proposal 726 to add DYDX.

SubDAO

The subDAO is a DAODAO two of three multisig located here and membership initially is:

  • Johnny Wyles (Osmosis Labs)
  • Max Power (Osmosis Support Lab)
  • Leonoor’s Cryptoman (Validator)
4 Likes
2

For me this is one of the logical steps to take.
The risk is small, and there is a way back in case of need. It also relaxes the load on governance (a bit) which is also a good step. Also having a headsup before being implemented and added to the shortlist of exceptions of things which do not need to pass governance is a very good thing.

On the subject itself: having a lot of different assets serving as potential means to pay for gas fees makes Osmosis a lot easier to use. People don’t need to get OSMO to be able to do transactions, but are able to do it in the asset they really want to trade and hold (or sell for that matter). The fact that on the backend it converts back to having value for OSMO is the final piece of the puzzle. I like this part of the UX of Osmosis very much and think that a leaner solution with faster responses for adding new assets is a must-have to cement our place in the competitive market of exchanges.

1 Like
3

Yeah getting rid of the 0 fee was very disappointing but also necessary. Next best thing is being able to use anything from just about any other network for the fee. This just streamlines that process.

4

Sounds good to me. It reduces the governance burden, leads to a faster implementation time of newly launched coins to be used to pay for tx fees and enhances the overall UX of Osmosis.