-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 711
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
xcm: multi-hop mixed asset transfers not working because of missing transport fee #4832
Labels
T6-XCM
This PR/Issue is related to XCM.
Comments
we need to do this polkadot-fellows/xcm-format#53 |
acatangiu
added a commit
to acatangiu/polkadot-sdk
that referenced
this issue
Dec 2, 2024
This can be paid either: - from `origin` local account if `jit_withdraw = true`, - taken from Holding register otherwise. This currently works for following hops/scenarios: 1. On destination no transport fee needed (only sending costs, not receiving), 2. Local/originating chain: just set JIT=true and fee will be paid from signed account, 3. Intermediary hops - only if intermediary is acting as reserve between two untrusted chains (aka only for `DepositReserveAsset` instruction) - this was fixed in paritytech#3142 But now we're seeing more complex asset transfers that are mixing reserve transfers with teleports depending on the involved chains. E.g. transferring DOT between Relay and parachain, but through AH (using AH instead of the Relay chain as parachain's DOT reserve). In the `Parachain --1--> AssetHub --2--> Relay` scenario, DOT has to be reserve-withdrawn in leg `1`, then teleported in leg `2`. On the intermediary hop (AssetHub), `InitiateTeleport` fails to send onward message because of missing transport fees. We also can't rely on `jit_withdraw` because the original origin is lost on the way, and even if it weren't we can't rely on the user having funded accounts on each hop along the way. - Charge the transport fee in the executor from the transferred assets (if available), - Only charge from transferred assets if JIT_WITHDRAW was not set, - Only charge from transferred assets if Holding doesn't already contain enough (other) assets to pay for the transport fee. Added regression tests in emulated transfers. Fixes paritytech#4832 Signed-off-by: Adrian Catangiu <[email protected]>
acatangiu
added a commit
to acatangiu/polkadot-sdk
that referenced
this issue
Dec 2, 2024
This can be paid either: - from `origin` local account if `jit_withdraw = true`, - taken from Holding register otherwise. This currently works for following hops/scenarios: 1. On destination no transport fee needed (only sending costs, not receiving), 2. Local/originating chain: just set JIT=true and fee will be paid from signed account, 3. Intermediary hops - only if intermediary is acting as reserve between two untrusted chains (aka only for `DepositReserveAsset` instruction) - this was fixed in paritytech#3142 But now we're seeing more complex asset transfers that are mixing reserve transfers with teleports depending on the involved chains. E.g. transferring DOT between Relay and parachain, but through AH (using AH instead of the Relay chain as parachain's DOT reserve). In the `Parachain --1--> AssetHub --2--> Relay` scenario, DOT has to be reserve-withdrawn in leg `1`, then teleported in leg `2`. On the intermediary hop (AssetHub), `InitiateTeleport` fails to send onward message because of missing transport fees. We also can't rely on `jit_withdraw` because the original origin is lost on the way, and even if it weren't we can't rely on the user having funded accounts on each hop along the way. - Charge the transport fee in the executor from the transferred assets (if available), - Only charge from transferred assets if JIT_WITHDRAW was not set, - Only charge from transferred assets if Holding doesn't already contain enough (other) assets to pay for the transport fee. Added regression tests in emulated transfers. Fixes paritytech#4832 Signed-off-by: Adrian Catangiu <[email protected]>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Description
Sending XCM messages to other chains requires paying a "transport fee". This can be paid either:
origin
local account ifjit_withdraw = true
,This currently works for following hops/scenarios:
DepositReserveAsset
instruction) - this was fixed in xcm-executor: DepositReserveAsset charges delivery fees from inner assets #3142But now we're seeing more complex asset transfers that are mixing reserve transfers with teleports depending on the involved chains.
E.g. transferring DOT between Relay and parachain, but through AH (using AH instead of the Relay chain as parachain's DOT reserve).
In the
Parachain --1--> AssetHub --2--> Relay
scenario, DOT has to be reserve-withdrawn in leg1
, then teleported in leg2
.On the intermediary hop (AssetHub),
InitiateTeleport
fails to send onward message because of missing transport fees. We also can't rely onjit_withdraw
because the original origin is lost on the way, and even if it weren't we can't rely on the user having funded accounts on each hop along the way.Solution
Charge the transport fee in the executor from the transferred assets (if available).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: