This makes sense. Hopefully the cost of transferring Noble USDC to Agoric will be lower than Axelar USDC and some easy low cost way to be able to transfer USDC to Noble from from like Coinbase for example.
Is there any consideration to further increase optionality and add KAVA USDT (is it too late to participate in the KAVA Rise program and potential receive some KAVA rewards?) and Wormhole bridged USDT and USDC l?
Also, the Osmosis Axelar-Noble USDC transmutter pool is also up and running. The transmutter pool allows for a 1:1 swap of Axelar USDC to Noble USDC with no slippage and no fees, except the normal gas/tx fee, at least for the time being. (Link to pool provided below.)
Currently, it appears that a proposal to turn on the protocol level taker fee at 0.1% will be put on-chain on Monday even though it is Yom Kippur. The current available draft of the proposal does not make an exception for the USDC transmutter pool. If this proposal is put on-chain early next week and passes, the protocol could start collecting this 0.1% taker fee as early as 9/30.
It is also possible that a proposal to remove all liquidity incentives except for a few select pools (e.g. atom/osmo, usdc/osmo, usdt/osmo, dai/osmo, statom/atom, stosmo/osmo) will be be put onchain on Monday as well.
In other Osmosis news, the pool creation fee has been raised to 1000 OSMO and permissionless concentrated liquidity pool creation may be available sometime in mid October.
I think we should not only add Noble’s native USDC, but also I suggest we replace/phase out bridged USDC to make native USDC canonical. I think both Gravity bridge and Axelar do great work, however I seen nothing but trouble having both a native and bridged units of the same asset bouncing around the Cosmos ecosystem and any other chain connected to it. Not to mention inherent bridge risks, one of the reasons we wanted a native USDC asset.
In order to create the CoreEval proposal, it seems we’re still in need of an IBC relayer operator to create a channel between Noble and Agoric. (The resulting channel id determines the denom that will go into the proposal.)
If you’re someone who can help with this, please reply here or the #ibc-infrastructurediscord channel !
As a risk management committee, the EC doesn’t publish minutes or notes from specific meetings. However, as evaluations are completed the EC documents the changes and rationale for them in the community forum.
USDC on Ethereum uses six decimals, and the denom traces to uusdc which typically indicates 6 decimals.
While this denom is ibc-native USDC, I am suggesting USDC_nbl for the keyword (issuer name) to future proof the implementation. If others feel USDC or USDC_nob is more appropriate, please voice feedback!
I would like to propose using just USDC, for the keyword and proposedName values, as Noble USDC is native to Cosmos.
This will not prevent from evolving the use of the names in the future, with appropriate work/testing, if USDT is launched natively on Agoric chain, for example.