Skip to content
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.

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

Support bridged token transfers from any chain #382

Open
IkerAlus opened this issue Mar 11, 2024 · 1 comment
Open

Support bridged token transfers from any chain #382

IkerAlus opened this issue Mar 11, 2024 · 1 comment
Assignees
Labels
enhancement New feature or request P1 - High High Priority

Comments

@IkerAlus
Copy link
Contributor

IkerAlus commented Mar 11, 2024

At the moment the API does not allow the user to set a global consensus systems as destination of the transfers (in order to perform a transfer of assets to a different ecosystem via the Bridge Hub).

To support this feature, the input params of the API will need to be adapted to a string beyond just the paraID as it is currently. Potentially, the destination address format/typing may need to be expanded too.

In terms of directions, it may make sense to introduce two (or three) new directions:

  • systemToBridge (should be covered by the new transferAssets call of pallet XCM.
  • paraToBridge (currently not supported by paras runtime).
  • RelayToBridge (to transfer the native DOT/KSM to a different eco).

Related issue: #371

@IkerAlus IkerAlus added enhancement New feature or request P1 - High High Priority labels Mar 11, 2024
@marshacb marshacb self-assigned this Mar 12, 2024
@marshacb marshacb moved this to In Progress in Asset Transfer API May 17, 2024
@marshacb marshacb moved this from In Progress to Todo in Asset Transfer API May 17, 2024
@marshacb marshacb moved this from Todo to In Progress in Asset Transfer API May 20, 2024
@IkerAlus
Copy link
Contributor Author

As commented recently the paraToBridge direction should be already supported in certain parachains on mainnet (f.e., moonbeam, mythos, astar and byfrost) since the call transfer_assets_using_type_and_then has been already enabled in their runtimes, and assuming execution fees on Asset Hub step are paid in an asset qith a liquidity pool with DOT (f.e. USDC/T)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request P1 - High High Priority
Projects
Status: In Progress
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants