V17: Scoping Issue

[p0mvn]

Background

Tentative plan for the v17 scope. Each effort is to have a design document created. Upon reviewing and accepting the design, the final decision about v17 inclusion will be made.

Note: hackmd with post-CL plans: https://hackmd.io/FOlDt6H7QlqyabBYhZVxMQ

• Async ICQ (Dev/Nicholas)
• Full power token factory (Matt)
• Protorev (Skip)
• Msg to break lock, swap to osmo, then stake (Matt)

In-Scope

Tasks

Beta Give feedback

1. Support Estimate Swap queries via grpc gateway #5446
   C:gRPC T:dev-UX +2
   
2. Add osmosis.poolmanager.v1beta1.Query/TotalPoolLiquidity to Stargate whitelist #5812
   +0
   
3. ProtoRev v17 Improvements Tracking #5858
   +0
   
4. refactor: uninitialize ticks when not referenced anymore #5867
   F: concentrated-liquidity +1
   
5. Optimizing gas for swaps #5842
   +0
   
6. Allow negative range accumulators #5854
   F: concentrated-liquidity T:bug 🐛 +2
   
7. Add async support to wasm hooks #5072
   C:app-wiring C:docs V:state/breaking +3
   
8. Query: single CFMM <> CL links list #5868
   +0
   
9. fix: cl spotprice query #5863
   C:CLI C:x/concentrated-liquidity C:x/poolmanager V:state/breaking +4
   
10. feat: governance gated permissioning system that allows breaking locks #5630
    +0
    
11. v17: Add CreateCLPool & LinkCFMMtoCL pool into one gov-prop #5888
    +0
    
12. Create CL pools, link, and enable SFS in v17 upgrade handler #5892
    +0
    
13. Remove ExponentAtPriceOne From Gov Prop CreateConcentratedPool #5894
    +0
14. Create Message for Staking Conversion #5898
    +0
    
15. Add param to allow non lock owner to force unlock #4252
    C:x/lockup Stale +2
16. Force undelegate superfluid staking position by whitelisted address #5861
    C:docs C:x/superfluid Stale V:state/breaking +4
17. Tokenfactory before send hooks finalization #5725
    +0
    
18. Stride change scalling factor gov acc
19. Add gas meter to tokenfactory trackBeforeSend #5927
    C:x/tokenfactory V:state/breaking +2

To Be Decided if included in v17

Tasks

Beta Give feedback

1. Support concurrency for IAVL #5928
   +0
   

Not Release Blocking

Tasks

Beta Give feedback

1. Accumulator package: Use pointers, save repeated gets #5845
   +0
   

Concurrent To v17

Efforts being pursued concurrently but independently of v17 release

Tasks

Beta Give feedback

1. Account Abstraction #5736
   +0
   
2. Node Stability Improvements #5737
   +0
   
3. [EPIC] On-chain IBC routing #4344
   10 of 15
   F: Crosschain Swaps T:epic ⛰ +2
   

[faddat]

I think that if v17 is on sdk 48, ibc will be at v8. Kind of a nit, but I think that'll be the case.

Can you run me through POB and volume based incentives?

Generally, we've been advising that chain upgrades to a new sdk version do not add features. How would you feel about doing this as a v17, then a v18 shortly after, with POB and volume based incentive splitting?

Also please note that I'm adding stuff to the issue above, lmk if that's alright.

• lint all tests #5127

[faddat]

Okay so I figured out that POB is the protocol owned builder from Skip and that sounds awesome, I'm currently upgrading IBC to SDK 50 and I guess I'd like to ask @ValarDragon If his stance has changed on using dependency injection in osmosis, not using it is really looking pretty baroque.

[p0mvn]

I think that if v17 is on sdk 48, ibc will be at v8. Kind of a nit, but I think that'll be the case.

Can you run me through POB and volume based incentives?

Generally, we've been advising that chain upgrades to a new sdk version do not add features. How would you feel about doing this as a v17, then a v18 shortly after, with POB and volume based incentive splitting?

Also please note that I'm adding stuff to the issue above, lmk if that's alright.

• lint all tests #5127

Sorry for the late reply.

I think that if v17 is on sdk 48, ibc will be at v8

Sounds great, thanks for the info. We haven't started investigating yet as we've been busy with CL. Will look more into it in a few weeks.

How would you feel about doing this as a v17, then a v18 shortly after, with POB and volume based incentive splitting?

Generally, we are supportive of smaller releases at a faster cadence. This issue's main goal is to track the next immediate priorities and what we want in v17. Before we fully converge on the scope, a design document will be written for each item identified here. Once the design documents shed light on the overall scope, we will make a decision on what the final v17 will look like.

Can you run me through POB and volume based incentives?

Looks like POB is already resolved. Volume-based incentives is a system to incentivize a denom pair assuming that there are 2 pools for the same pair such as classic and CL pool. Then, the distribution to each of the pools will be dynamically split based on volume.

Also please note that I'm adding stuff to the issue above, lmk if that's alright.

Let's not add lints here please and use this issue for tracking release blocking items instead.
We can get in the lint improvements but they don't necessarily have to block the v17 release

[faddat]

@p0mvn great point about the lints.

I try and do them before upgrades to make the upgrade easier becasue the upgrade tends to break a lot of things, but you're right they absolutely shouldn't block a release.

Want to have a call sometime next week in order to figure out what the unfork should look like?

[faddat]

@p0mvn -- here's an update of ibc-go

• bump sdk's libraries, cleanup notional-labs/ibc-go#214