Enabling Transfers (continued)

:warning:This thread is a continuation of the enabling transfers discussion. We moved this discussion in to the governance category, please see the previous thread here.

From @patogit

I was not part of the decision to launch without transfers, and I think it’s a wise decision. I think one of the reasons that Regen Network is taking a slower path than some other blockchains is to make sure that things run as smoothly as possible, and our ten-second mainnet launch shows that this strategy is working very well. Regen Network needs to run with great stability in order to win trust from society and various institutions that are neither tech savvy nor blockchain specialists – more so than many other blockchains, I think, because the purpose is ecological regeneration, not network services for tech projects. In one of the Planetary Regeneration Podcast episodes, Gregory compares building Regen Ledger and Regen Network to the civil engineering of building a very large bridge – every step is considered carefully and planned ahead and tested because we’re building public infrastructure that needs to “just work” once it’s released to the public.

Also, we know that there are more people running first-time validators here (mostly for ecological motivations) compared to many other networks (where money and purpose are more mainstream, and the people running validators have more validator experience). I’m part of one of a first-time validator (Akit Takat): if we jumped straight from launch into a fully-enabled network, I might be a bit lost. Launching mainnet step by step is much more practical, I think.

Yes, it also means that our validator is earning rewards, but the delegations my validator has received are to do more with my purpose – most delegations so far are from Regen Network official entities RND and RF, I think, more than private investors (maybe I’m wrong about this) – and RND and RF give priority to validators who share the purpose of Regen Network.

In society at large, money just runs after money. Regen Network is designed to channel money towards ecological regeneration. Giving block rewards priority to validators that have demonstrated commitment to ecological regeneration, practical implementation of Regen Network (beyond Regen Ledger, such as app development, Community Staking DAO participation, connections with science processes and land stewards)… this is a way to strengthen the purpose of Regen Network.

That’s my guess about why we launched with transfers disabled: mostly for stability, and maybe also to give more block rewards to purpose-aligned validators.


Hey All!

Just chiming in with the Regen Foundation context here. Gregory mentioned that he’d like to see a higher staking ratio before we go ahead with this. We at the Foundation have already delegated our 5mm REGEN, and just put out a proposal for staking the 30mm Community Staking Allocation that we steward. All told, the current proposal would have 25mm of this allocation staked within six months (5mm a month, starting about three weeks out). Read more here.

1 Like

I encourage us consider moving on enabling transfers sooner than later. I think it is wise to wait until there is a higher staking ratio, but my hope is that we cross the 50% threshold perhaps this week and at that point, considering the fact that Regen Foundation is holding a huge portion of the unstaked tokens it appears to me that the chain would be at very little risk.

I know there are a handful of token holders who are stuck without any tokens left to claim their rewards and a whole stack of interested REGEN token purchasers waiting for our public sale, which obviously can only happen after transfers are enabled.

My sense is that if we vote to enable, we’ll be in a good spot by the time it’s enabled.


Hi all! Loacom, {IA}, Entheos, and I had a short call today on this topic. Now that we’ve moved beyond the 50% discussed above, we’d like to move forward here and below are a few next steps we’ve identified.


  • We’d like to move forward with enabling transfers and also IBC transfers as two separate proposals
  • We intend to post a soft proposals to discourse in the next week for an open comment and review period prior to submitting a governance proposal on chain
  • Today we invite general discussion, comments, and technical review from all validators, Regen Ledger team, and Regen Foundation

Technical Details

  • We can see that to enable transfers requires a change to the SendTransfers parameter within the x/bank cosmos module —> Parameters | Cosmos SDK
  • We can see that that “the params Keeper can be used to add a route to x/gov router in order to modify any parameter in case a prposal passes” Params Overview | Cosmos SDK
  • IBC module documentation is here IBC Overview | Cosmos SDK

In reading through and chatting with some folks, here is a quick reflection:

*it may be better to have both proposals referring to a single UPGRADE with a single time.

This is because network upgrades are not trivial, so should be limited. A single upgrade instead of two upgrades will be easier for validators and safer. Given this is simply enabling a module and transfers (both param changes) I believe it should be pretty straightforward to have a single upgrade achieve both proposals.

1 Like

Hi Gregory, both enabling transfers and IBC are simply parameter updates. They do not require an upgrade

1 Like

In favor of enabling transfers and IBC. Since both are just param changes, I believe they can be two separate param change proposals. It makes sense to enable transfers first though.

With Gravity DEX launching soon, the timing is right to get some liquidity flowing.


Right. I guess my head was scrambled about that. Easy!