Well, I will say that I learned something today - that is for sure. Even though it is in the proto documents, since it is not documented in the classic-docs (either as standard proposal types, or in terrad documentation), have you tried this in a test net (it sounds like from one of the answers you have given you might have)?
Reference:
You can also refer to this page:
https://ibc.cosmos.network/main/ibc/proposals.html
Itâs valid for all chains that use ibc-go.
@fragwuerdig it would make more sense to first pass the âIBC Relay Operator Incentivesâ proposal, and then this one, no??? After that, we could reactivate one IBC at a time with an incentive already in place.
Before the crash, how was the business model for the relay operators? Who paid the gas fees?
I donât know exactly. I mean, as a validator you might be simply able to run a relay without loss. I think for most chain operators running a relay simply belongs to their infrastructure of business. Like Osmosis.
And yes, it makes totally sense to have the incentives in place first. But the current proposal has a much lower entry level to implement (letâs grab the low hanging fruits).
We are talking with the validators to implement relays as we go with this proposalâŚ
For the validators, your other proposal to incentivize Relay Operators would be enough for them to take this task? What is the sentiment among the validators?
And after Cosmos, what other IBC channels could be reenabled? Osmosis would need an extra step to do it, but what about Juno, Sifchain, Thorchain, etc? I guess these chains would add instant utility to Lunc.
About what you said:
What needs to happen to make this system fully decentralized?
Yes. It would be a business model to run a relay. I certainly would do it, being incentivized. And from my perspective itâs even easier to run a relay than running a validator node.
And after Cosmos, what other IBC channels could be reenabled?
Literally, any chain, except Osmosis, Juno and Crescent.
What needs to happen to make this system fully decentralized?
Having more people that are willing to run a relay. Seriously, Iâve been talking to the validators. They offered me to let the relay be operated by community members like me. They would provide a relay account from which relaying fees could be drawn. That would be a first step, I guess.
The âfully decentralizedâ road would be the update of the ibc-go module and putting on-chain incentives into place.
But there is another thing that came to my mind recently: The version number from which ibc-go supports on-chain incentives is pretty far away. And there is no other chain using that incentives-module. So itâs basically untested under real-life conditions⌠Do we really wanna put that code into our chain?
When is the governance vote started? for Client Unfreeze and then IBC channel Reable.
I put the proposal on-chain. I made no initial deposits. So the proposal should be in STATUS_DEPOSIT_PERIOD. The ID of the proposal is 10880. I put the proposal on-chain via terrad command line client on my personal Terra full-node. However, my TerraStation is not showing the proposal (even if I choose to show only proposals in depositing period). If you are a technical person you would be able to see, that the proposal is on-chain (with given ID). Itâs just not showing in TerraStation. Not sure what is going on here and how non-technicals are supposed to deposit and vote on that thingâŚ
Itâs now showing in my TerraStation but no votes
No Brainer! Big yes. Thank you.
You may be able to show by clicking âShow allâ in TerraStation I think. I can see your proposal.
Thank you for your support.
thanks for your efforts, waiting for Osmosis
Voted!
Hey everyone, just be aware that there is a scam proposal with the same title. The correct one (being proposed here) is Proposal 10880 - Client update proposal: Cosmoshub IBC Reactivation via Client Unfreeze
How this would work? I have an interest in this (maybe some community members alsoâŚ), but I donât have the technical knowledge to do so.
Why no other chain is using this? What would be the risks involved if we choose to use it?
@fragwuerdig, many thanks, for this proposal! This is a very good move for public relations and back Terra to reality position.
Can you kindly explain what will happen when itâs for Osmosis?
When the IBC channels reopen between Osmosis <> Terra Classic, users will be able to directly transfer USTC and LUNC between the two blockchains.
How soon until this proposal is implemented? Congrats to everyone who voted yes, too!
The proposal came into effect immediately. I am now working on the other side of the connection on Cosmoshub. Checkout prop. 84 on Cosmoshub in your Keplr Wallet.
Right on! I canât vote for it or deposit anything to help push it along yet though for some reason?
Saw on Twitter that IBC was re-enabled (following you now btw 
)
For some reason my Terra Classic bridge says I canât transfer my assets from Classic to Cosmos as itâs still suspended. Am I using the wrong bridge?
Also, Will this affect OSMO, SCRT tokens on Classic or just ATOM?