[Proposal: 104] InvArch Proposal Open/Accept HRMP channel and Register Asset xcVARCH

InvArch XCM Disclosures

TL:DR

This batched proposal is to Accept/Open an HRMP channel with InvArch and Register Asset xcVARCH

Summary

We propose to open a bi-directional channel between Moonbeam and InvArch. Initially, the main use case will be to transfer GLMR and xcVARCH between the two chains, but it can be further expanded to other use cases. The proposal also includes the VARCH asset registration as xcVARCH, with the following details:

  • Multilocation: {“parents”: 1, “interior”: {“X2”: [{“Parachain”: 3340}, {“GeneralIndex”: 0 }]}}
  • Decimals: 12
  • Name: InvArch
  • Symbol: xcVARCH

xcVARCH will have the following asset ID and XC-20 address:

  • Asset ID: 231000050626813105388752285227530839203
  • XC-20 address: 0xffffffffadc8fdd0b273ab44ca6b38a7dcefe4a3

On-Chain Proposal Reference

On-Chain Proposal #[104] with the associated hash: 0x45eafb9cab51ce419ba996cac40a329bab68567ad1d5b238995f0ddb99a1f948

Technical details:

The procedure for opening the channels is as follows:

  • InvArch: already proposed to open an HRMP channel to Moonbeam
  • Moonbeam: democracy batched proposal:
    • Accept HRMP channel from InvArchNetwork to Moonbeam
    • Open Moonbeam to InvArch HRMP channel
    • Register xcVARCH asset as an XC-20

Once the HRMP channels are ready, XCM based cross-chain transfer will be possible. The extrinsics that need to be executed on the relay chain, are:

  • To accept the HRMP channel to Moonbeam: hrmp.hrmpAcceptOpenChannel(sender:3340) , which hex-encoded call data is 0x3c01f2070000
  • To open the HRMP channel from Moonbeam: hrmp.hrmpInitOpenChannel(recipient: 3340, proposedMaxCapacity: 1000, proposedMaxMessageSize: 102400), which its hex-encoded call data is 0x3c000c0d0000e803000000900100

The *proposedMaxCapacity *and proposedMaxMessageSize are set to the values of Polkadot/Kusama configuration.activeConfig.hrmpChannelMaxCapacity and configuration.activeConfig.hrmpChannelMaxMessageSize values, respectively.

These extrinsics need to be called from the parachain’s sovereign account as origin, via a democracy proposal. The proposal will use polkadotXcm pallet to send XCM message to the Relay Chain with the following items:

  • Withdraw asset: take funds out of the Sovereign Account of the origin parachain (in the relay chain) to a holding state
  • Buy execution: buys execution time from the relay chain, to execute the XCM message
  • Transact: provides the call data to be executed
  • Deposit asset (optional): refunds the leftover funds after the execution. If this is not provided, no refunds will be carried out

The asset will be registered with the metadata described in the summary. The setAssetUnitsPerSecond was calculated using the value for VARCH value on 2025-03-20, targeting a XCM transaction cost of 0.02$.

If you are interested, the hex-encoded call data for this proposal in Moonbeam is:

0x1e020c6b09000c0d0000e803000000900100010401000100e40b5402000000000000000000000002286bee0200040001006b09010c0d0000010401000100e40b5402000000000000000000000002286bee0200040001001e00087200a3e4efdca7386bca44ab73b2d0fdc8ad010200313405000c1c786356415243481c496e76417263687300010200313405000000b48c31edd33c6800000000000000

As a prerequisite, the parachain’s sovereign account must contain at least 20 DOT/KSM to be locked as collateral (10 for each channel direction), plus some DOT/KSM to pay for XCM execution fees.

2 Likes

@Francisco_Valentim_C Thanks for submitting Proposal.

Before being able to fully support your proposal, several members of the community (myself included) would like to receive important clarifications on the following points:

Proposal #6 on Polkadot Treasury (Saturn Gateway – 75,435 DOT), which has been flagged on OG Tracker due to lack of delivery and transparency:
:link: Saturn Gateway - A Multichain Multisig Application for the Polkadot Ecosystem | Polkassembly
:link: OG Tracker

Two live referenda on Kusama:
→ One to secure DAO funds currently under InvArch’s control (#510)
→ Another proposing the removal of a team member from the Fellowship (#508)

This is not a criticism of your technical work or your intention to keep building, quite the opposite. I believe interoperability should be supported by projects that are both technically sound and transparent.

At this stage, I believe a public statement from your team addressing these concerns would be a strong step toward restoring trust and allowing Proposal #104 to be assessed on solid, shared grounds.

Thanks in advance for your response and your commitment to the community. :handshake:

2 Likes