-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5
docs: document Prop 121 disabling outbound IBC, remove dead bridge-out routes and IBC remnants #51
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
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Changes from all commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -9,16 +9,16 @@ | |
| The first parallelized EVM blockchain delivering unmatched scalability and speed. | ||
|
|
||
| <Danger> | ||
| **Action required: IBC assets on Sei will become inaccessible** | ||
| **IBC is disabled on Sei in both directions** | ||
|
|
||
| If you hold [USDC.n](https://seiscan.io/address/0x3894085Ef7Ff0f0aeDf52E2A2704928d1Ec074F1) (USDC via Noble), [USDT.kava](https://seiscan.io/address/0xb75d0b03c06a926e488e2659df1a861f860bd3d1) (Kava USDT), Wormhole-bridged tokens, or any other IBC asset on Sei, you **must** swap, migrate, or bridge out **before the governance proposal to disable inbound/outbound IBC transfers passes and is activated** to avoid permanent loss of access. After this, Sei will no longer support IBC bridging of assets from Cosmos-based chains to and from Sei Network. | ||
| [Proposal #121](https://seistream.app/proposals/121) passed on July 31, 2026 and disabled outbound IBC transfers. Inbound IBC was already disabled by [Proposal #116](https://seistream.app/proposals/116) and [Proposal #120](https://seistream.app/proposals/120). No asset can be bridged into or out of Sei over IBC. | ||
|
|
||
| Consult the [SIP-03 Migration Guide](/learn/sip-03-migration) for the full list of affected assets, required actions, and supported routes. | ||
| If you hold [USDC.n](https://seiscan.io/address/0x3894085Ef7Ff0f0aeDf52E2A2704928d1Ec074F1) (USDC via Noble), [USDT.kava](https://seiscan.io/address/0xb75d0b03c06a926e488e2659df1a861f860bd3d1) (Kava USDT), ATOM, WBTC, or any other IBC asset on Sei, it can no longer be redeemed on its origin chain. The balance still exists on Sei and can still be transferred within Sei. | ||
|
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. [suggestion] The rewritten callout drops "Wormhole-bridged tokens" from the affected-asset list that the previous version included, and the Suggest a short clause such as "…or Wormhole-bridged tokens (stranded separately, since Portal Bridge legacy was withdrawn)" so those holders still get routed to the guide. |
||
|
|
||
| For USDC.n specifically, see: [Holders of USDC.n Need to Swap or Migrate](https://blog.sei.io/announcements/holders-of-usdcn-need-to-swap-or-migrate/). | ||
| See the [SIP-03 Migration Guide](/learn/sip-03-migration) for what changed, the full list of affected assets, and what remains possible. | ||
|
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. [nit] The Holders of USDC.n Need to Swap or Migrate link was dropped from both this homepage callout and the |
||
| </Danger> | ||
|
|
||
| ## Quick Start | ||
|
|
||
| <CardGroup cols={3}> | ||
| <Card title="Deploy a Smart Contract" icon="code" horizontal href="/evm/evm-general"> | ||
|
|
@@ -38,7 +38,7 @@ | |
| </Card> | ||
| </CardGroup> | ||
|
|
||
| ## Essential Resources | ||
|
|
||
| <CardGroup cols={3}> | ||
| <Card title="Chain Info" icon="globe" horizontal href="/learn/dev-chains"> | ||
|
|
@@ -127,7 +127,7 @@ | |
| </Card> | ||
| </CardGroup> | ||
|
|
||
| ## Smart Contracts | ||
|
|
||
| <Card title="Deploy & Debug on Sei" icon="code" horizontal href="/evm/evm-general"> | ||
| Write, deploy, and debug Solidity smart contracts with your favorite toolchain. Sei is fully EVM-compatible with 400 ms blocks and parallelized execution. | ||
|
|
@@ -140,7 +140,7 @@ | |
| <Card title="Best Practices" icon="gauge-high" horizontal href="/evm/best-practices/optimizing-for-parallelization" /> | ||
| </CardGroup> | ||
|
|
||
| ## Infrastructure & Tools | ||
|
|
||
| <CardGroup cols={2}> | ||
| <Card title="Run a Node" icon="lock" horizontal href="/node"> | ||
|
|
||
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -6,7 +6,13 @@ | |
|
|
||
| This section is for exchanges, custodians, and other service providers that currently support SEI token deposits and withdrawals using native (`sei1...`) addresses. It explains what SIP-03 changes, the options available for migrating customer holdings to EVM (`0x...`) addresses, and the timeline by which migration must be complete. | ||
|
|
||
| <Warning> | ||
| **IBC is already disabled in both directions.** Proposals [#116](https://seistream.app/proposals/116) and [#120](https://seistream.app/proposals/120) disabled inbound IBC, and [#121](https://seistream.app/proposals/121) disabled outbound IBC on July 31, 2026. No asset can be bridged into or out of Sei over IBC, so IBC is not available as a route for moving customer funds off Sei, and IBC-bridged assets held on Sei can no longer be redeemed on their origin chain. See [IBC is disabled](/learn/sip-03-migration#ibc-is-disabled). | ||
|
|
||
| The migration options below move funds between the native and EVM sides of Sei. They are intra-chain and are not affected by the IBC parameters. | ||
| </Warning> | ||
|
|
||
| ### What SIP-03 changes | ||
|
|
||
| For exchanges, the practical implication of the SIP-03 migration is that any integration treating "Sei" (native) and "Sei EVM" as two separate chains needs to be reconciled into a single integration before the Cosmos shutdown. Every native address (`sei1...`) on Sei has a corresponding EVM address (`0x...`) on the same chain. This is not two distinct chains or wallets, it is one chain with two ways to interact with it. | ||
|
|
||
|
|
@@ -24,19 +30,19 @@ | |
| - Ensure the native and EVM addresses are associated on-chain (see [Address association](#address-association) below). | ||
| - Update internal accounting and customer-facing UI to present the EVM address as the canonical Sei address. | ||
|
|
||
| #### 2) Automated forwarding contract | ||
|
|
||
| The exchange uses a `FundsForwarder` smart contract to programmatically move customer funds from the native side to the customer's EVM wallet on the exchange. The exchange handles deployment and triggering; the customer sees the funds arrive at the new address without taking any action themselves. | ||
|
|
||
| This is appropriate when the exchange cannot or does not want to expose EVM addresses for existing native wallets directly, but is willing to operate the migration itself. | ||
|
|
||
| #### 3) User-directed forwarding contract | ||
|
|
||
| The exchange notifies customers of the change and directs them to the `FundsForwarder` contract address. Customers initiate the transfer themselves; this action triggers the contract to automatically forward funds to the appropriate EVM wallet on the exchange. | ||
|
|
||
| This is functionally similar to option 2 but pushes the trigger action onto the customer. It is appropriate when the exchange cannot operate the contract directly but wants to provide an automated destination. | ||
|
|
||
| #### 4) Fully manual transfer | ||
|
|
||
| The exchange notifies customers of the change and asks them to manually withdraw funds to a self-custodial wallet and then redeposit them to the EVM address provided by the exchange. | ||
|
|
||
|
|
@@ -50,7 +56,7 @@ | |
|
|
||
| For details on how to query association status and the methods for associating addresses, see [Accounts](/learn/accounts). | ||
|
|
||
| ### FundsForwarder contract | ||
|
|
||
| The `FundsForwarder` is a one-way smart contract that accepts deposits at a native (`sei1...`) address and forwards the full balance to a pre-configured EVM (`0x...`) destination address. It is the underlying mechanism for options 2 and 3 above. | ||
|
|
||
|
|
@@ -62,7 +68,7 @@ | |
|
|
||
| ### Migration milestone | ||
|
|
||
| Address association must be completed prior to deprecation of all Cosmos, CosmWasm and IBC related functionality, slated for **June 15, 2026**. After deprecation: | ||
| IBC has already been disabled, in both directions, by Proposals [#116](https://seistream.app/proposals/116), [#120](https://seistream.app/proposals/120), and [#121](https://seistream.app/proposals/121). Address association must still be completed prior to deprecation of the remaining Cosmos and CosmWasm functionality, slated for **June 15, 2026**. After deprecation: | ||
|
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. [suggestion] This line was rewritten but still presents June 15, 2026 as a future deadline ("must still be completed prior to") — that date is roughly six weeks in the past. For the exchange/custodian audience this is the most actionable sentence on the page, so a past date phrased as a deadline is worse here than elsewhere. The PR description flags this as a deliberate follow-up because the actual Cosmos/CosmWasm shutdown status is unknown, which is a fair call — guessing a new date would be worse. But since the sentence was already being edited, consider hedging the tense rather than leaving it reading as upcoming, e.g. "was slated for June 15, 2026; confirm current status with the Sei team." Same applies to
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. [suggestion] This PR's whole purpose is retiring deadlines that have already passed, but this rewritten sentence still presents June 15, 2026 as an upcoming milestone — that date is ~7 weeks in the past as of the Prop 121 activation this PR documents. An exchange reading "must still be completed prior to ... slated for June 15, 2026" gets a self-contradictory instruction. I understand from the PR description that the actual Cosmos/CosmWasm shutdown status is unknown and you'd rather not guess — that's the right call on the substance. But since the line is already being edited, consider neutralizing the tense rather than leaving a future-framed past date, e.g. "...slated for June 15, 2026; contact Sei support to confirm the current status of the Cosmos interface shutdown." Same issue at |
||
|
|
||
| - Exchanges and their users will not be able to access or transfer funds. | ||
| - Cosmos-native transaction interfaces will no longer be available. Exchanges will not be able to broadcast Cosmos-format transactions, sign with Cosmos key derivations against the live chain, or interact with the chain through Cosmos RPC endpoints. | ||
|
|
||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
[nit] The reframing is the right call over deletion, but
**Any native denom:**breaks the Title Case pattern of its two sibling bullets (**Direct Integration:**,**Native Execution:**).**Any Native Denom:**would keep the list consistent.