UX Proposal: Consensus-Based Address Formats

I strongly support this. As people have pointed out, it would require some coordinated effort but after that the UX improvements would be big.

1 Like


Love the effort but want to make sure some of the edge cases are taken care of. At Talisman, we’ve had a few of instances where addresses aren’t actually universal in practice:

  1. Sometimes exchanges only support a certain network for ingest of funds. We’ve had users send funds to a deposit address but on a parachain/chain that is not supported by the CEX, and then are told that those funds are not recoverable. It’s reason why our “Copy Funds” in the wallet has so many steps in it. (p.s. we are simplifying that now). Maybe this goes away as AssetHub is adopted.

  2. The non-generic ledger apps do not have a universal address. We’ve had users send/receive funds or participate in crowdloans using a Ledger using a different parachain and then not be able to recover funds unless they burn their seed phrase. This should go away with the generic ledger app, but there will definitely be an upgrade issue for devices in the wild as maybe people don’t want to upgrade their ledgers.

  3. As tbaut mentions above, pure proxies only function on one particular chain, so assets sent to the universal version of those addresses would certainly be lost.

Those being said, let’s take the pain now and the future will be brighter for it.

  • William

This is obviously not true from a technical standpoint (although I fully believe it happens in practive). We should support those exchanges in making sure users can get their assets.

Like it! Keep it simple. :raised_hands:

Nice idea! I think even Kusama and Polkadot can use the same prefix, as there will be a bridge between them anyway.

This is a must-have and must-support proposal. SubWallet is 100% in favor of this idea and we are more than happy to collaborate from the wallet side.

The fact that parachains and relaychains each have a different address is creating more friction than convenience for both users and wallet developers alike. Getting the correct address for a specific network takes an extra 1 to 2 clicks, and that means users are more likely to lose their assets by transferring to the wrong network, especially when transferring to CEX or Ledger (given that they only support independent addresses and networks). This has unsurprisingly led to frustration from users who are familiar with 1 address only for all EVM chains.

The best way to enhance user experience I think we should use 1 address only for both Polkadot and Kusama. This approach also fits with the dApp-centric mindset rather than network-centric. Users can focus 100% on the dApp experience without facing the barrier when switching networks (Polkadot, Kusama, etc…)

On SubWallet, we have also been trying to minimize the address complexity by using Prefix: 42 (starting with 5) as the default address for all wallets since that’s the default Substrate format. However, it doesn’t work very well since parachains and relaychains are using too many different address formats. I believe standardizing all default Substrate, Polkadot, Kusama and parachain address formats to Prefix: 0 type is the way to go.

1 Like

Loving it. Would be wesome if Polkadot, Kusama, and all Substrate base chain all of the same address for users?

I would personally still prefer to have different addresses based on consensus, so one address for everything Polkadot and one for everything Kusama. This makes it clear that you’re “in a different world”.

1 Like

What do you think about running AB Testing for users to try out 2 options and recording their feedback so that we can decide the more optimized option? Whether both Polkadot and Kusama having the same address format or each ecosystem using their own address format is still better than each parachain having their own address format.

Plus, in my opinion we should change the default Substrate format into prefix 0 to be consistent with Polkadot for Polkadot SDK