Txfee maintainence

Proposal Discussion
1

Proposal

The txfee module allows any token with sufficient liquidity in an OSMO pair to be used as a transaction fee on Osmosis. This proposal seeks to add (native) USDT and USDC as accepted fee tokens, as well as switch the pools used to calculate pricing and swap the fees to the new concentrated liquidity pools where available and with sufficient liquidity.

New denoms

USDT (ibc/4ABBEF4C8926DDDB320AE5188CFD63267ABBCEFC0583E4AE05D6E5AA2401DDAB) - pool 1077
USDC (ibc/498A0751C798A0D9A389AA3691123DADA57DAA4FE165D5C75894505B876BA6E4) - pool TBD

Changed pools

ATOM (ibc/27394FB092D2ECCD56123C74F36E4C1F926001CEADA9CA97EA622B25F41E5EB2) - pool 1135
USDC.axl (ibc/D189335C6E4A68B513C10AB227BF1C1D38C746766278BA3EEB4FB14124F1D858) - pool 1133
WETH.axl (ibc/EA1D43981D5C9A1C4AAEA9C23BB1D4FA126BA9BC7020A25E0AE4AA841EA25DC5) - pool 1134
WBTC.axl (ibc/D1542AA8762DB13087D8364F3EA6509FD6F009A34F00426AF9E4F9FA85CBBF1F) - pool 1090

All other fee denoms and pools to remain unchanged

2

Will the USDC.axl pool also stay applicable? Since the liquidity might be deep enough?

3

What were the liquidity requirements again for a token to be eligible as an alternative transaction fee token?

4

Will the USDC.axl pool also stay applicable? Since the liquidity might be deep enough?

Not sure what you mean here. For USDC.axl there will be at least two applicable pools, 678 and 1133. The goal of this prop is to prefer the concentrated liquidity pool (1133). However if a CL were created with an lower spread factor I think that one would be preferable (this applies to all fee tokens)

What were the liquidity requirements again for a token to be eligible as an alternative transaction fee token?

According to the previous proposal, the token should have:

  • An OSMO pool containing at least 5000 paired OSMO of liquidity.
  • That has maintained this liquidity for at least 30 days.
  • A maximum Swap Fee on this pool of 0.5%
1 Like
5

I meant if we are keeping the USDC.axl as allowed fee-asset, in parallel to the canonical USDC :slight_smile:

6

OH I see. The thinking is to have as many fee tokens as liquidity allows, so that a user bridging any arbitrary asset has a good chance of being able to use this asset for gas, and not need to rely on a faucet or something.

In addition, @JohnnyWyles will be proposing soon to use protorev to enable usage of fee tokens that do not have a direct osmo pair

1 Like
7

Looking forward to the prop of @JohnnyWyles; I have a hunch where it leads to, but waiting with an opinion until I have read it :slight_smile: