Skip to content

Add IBC channels: Bitsong ↔ Axelar and Archway ↔ Juno #6484

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Draft
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Draft

Add IBC channels: Bitsong ↔ Axelar and Archway ↔ Juno #6484

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
97105a1
Add IBC channels: Bitsong ↔ Axelar and Archway ↔ Juno
Validatrium Aug 5, 2025
f59e1fd
Add IBC channels: Bitsong ↔ Axelar (Fixed)
Validatrium Aug 6, 2025
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
15 changes: 8 additions & 7 deletions _IBC/archway-juno.json
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -2,28 +2,29 @@
"$schema": "../ibc_data.schema.json",
"chain_1": {
"chain_name": "archway",
"client_id": "07-tendermint-18",
"connection_id": "connection-19"
"client_id": "07-tendermint-121",
"connection_id": "connection-119"
},
"chain_2": {
"chain_name": "juno",
"client_id": "07-tendermint-387",
"connection_id": "connection-379"
"client_id": "07-tendermint-583",
"connection_id": "connection-550"
},
"channels": [
{
"chain_1": {
"channel_id": "channel-15",
"channel_id": "channel-208",
"port_id": "transfer"
},
"chain_2": {
"channel_id": "channel-290",
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It looks like this old channel was used, and so it may be that case that tokens already transferred would be abandoned if a new main IBC channel is registered to replace the current one. Are we able to show that no (or very few--testing) tokens has been abandoned on either chain?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes you can

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Please provide this evidence

"channel_id": "channel-655",
"port_id": "transfer"
},
"ordering": "unordered",
"version": "ics20-1",
"tags": {
"status": "live"
"status": "live",
"preferred": true
}
}
]
Expand Down
31 changes: 31 additions & 0 deletions _IBC/bitsong-axelar.json
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
{
"$schema": "../ibc_data.schema.json",
"chain_1": {
"chain_name": "bitsong",
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The chain order is opposite of alphabetical, causing checks to fail

"client_id": "07-tendermint-82",
"connection_id": "connection-57"
},
"chain_2": {
"chain_name": "axelar",
"client_id": "07-tendermint-252",
"connection_id": "connection-243"
},
"channels": [
{
"chain_1": {
"channel_id": "channel-38",
"port_id": "transfer"
},
"chain_2": {
"channel_id": "channel-183",
"port_id": "transfer"
},
"ordering": "unordered",
"version": "ics20-1",
"tags": {
"status": "live",
"preferred": true
}
}
]
}
Loading