Estimated # of attendees: 30
Attendees/key participants: Iker and Joe (leads), Ricardo (moderator), Sacha (note taker)
Date and location of session: June 26 2023, Copenhagen
The session kicked off with a presentation from @IkerParity, stepping through the new
Foreign Assets Pallet and, by extension, the direction on the intended use of the Asset Hub(s), followed by an open Q&A with @joepetrowski.
Thank you to everyone who participated. Let’s use this thread to share the discussion points with the rest of the community and gather any additional insight or comments that I may’ve missed during my note taking.
In a nutshell the pallet:
- Defines assets by multilocation
- Asset ID expresses its “home”
- Is useful for custodians, bridges, and other parachains
Implications for parachains:
- Asset hub allows teleports of sibling parachain assets to/from the native parachain
- Asset hub doesn’t not recognize a reserve location for any assets
- Parachains need to configure XCM config
Key message: this pallet exists already on the Asset Hub, we want to see what the community thinks about the proposed direction and start using it.
This implies that parachain teams give up sovereignty over their assets
- Response: there’s no difference in trust level
- We trust a chain to manage the issuance of a token so we can teleport. But it doesn’t mean we teleport assets everywhere. If parachain 2 and 3 want to transact they use reserved transfer. But assets hub does not need to hold the assets.
Where do people look to see what the best practices are for implementing these XCM use cases? Whats a reliable source of truth?
- Trappist can be that. We’re also looking at use cases docs around Trappist.
How would we resolve the potential problem of a chain changing their issuance for example?
- Just because the tokens are in the asset hub doesn’t mean that the assets are safe or useful.
How are the tokens from reserves distributed into the assets hub?
- Because the tokens were never moved, you unreserve and then teleport to the hub.
- You can teleport your assets on the hub. Then you mint tokens on the sovereign accounts of paras A, B and C if you wanted.
How does moving KSM back to where it was work? Will parachains move their assets to the hub? Or just users?
Observation about using Fireblocks to interact with other defi protocols. How many exchanges will be adopting this concept?
- Binance already allows USDT
How to handle more complex interactions ?
- You can have multiple assets from multiple pallets
How to think about making metadata standard for wallets like ledger?
- There’s a solution being presented tomorrow(see: Adapting Metadata for Hardware Wallets).
What influences the trust levels?
- Relay chain governance and its validators: one trust level
- Governance of another chain: additional trust level (so chains have to trust more)
We want users to only need to focus on what they’re doing, not what chain they’re on.
There’s a commonly wrong mental model that’s adopted which needs changing: the assets on the asset hub aren’t any more legitimate just because they’re on the Hub. Anyone can make a token and mess with the issuance. Its for users and chains to do their due diligence.
There weren’t strong controversial opinions about this direction with the Foreign Assets Pallet and decision around its intended use.