I’m really not a fan of adding these new chains like this. For one, we need to make sure that we have more than 1 relayer up - having a single point of failure for these networks is not a great look. It makes us look bad when things go down and users experience their tokens get stuck.
Thanks for your feedback. I agree with your statement about adding more relayers to support the connections. As it stands Juno and Chihuahua are only supported by Lavender.Five, but Cryptocrew is setting up their Juno relayer: Secret Network Relayers - Google Sheets
Secondly, I think adding more chains like this is a missed opportunity in terms of marketing. Why aren’t we making announcements with these chains, or some sort of cooperation? The actual liqudity that our network sees when adding a small amount of rewards is not really that significant for growth.
Sure, there could have been more coordination over comms, however these integrations are being coordinated across the different chains and in direct talks with leads on the chains. In addition, @tor has been involved with the Chihuahua integration. There are also projects already being built to facilitate the joining of communities: 0.
I’ll concede that Juno could have used more love than just a few tweets from the Juno team and Lavender.Five. The cardinal impetus for adding this connection was to add SCRT to Junoswap, which is coming soon.
Lastly, why invest resources into these chains? Like, we’re really adding HUAHUA for no reason instead of something like CRO?
CRO has a high market cap, sure, but from what I can tell a “weak” community (for those CRO fans - I don’t mean anything bad about that, I just don’t see as much enthusiasm). I don’t agree that more resources should be invested in CRO over HUAHUA because “Chihuahua, really?”
Juno is, for lack of a better term, the non-private analog to Secret. Juno has arguably the strongest community in the Cosmos, not to mention highly proficient developers. It’s a natural pairing.
Chihuahua is Cosmos’ first meme coin, and is expanding rapidly with a similarly fast-growing community. I think we would be remiss to not support it and show enthusiasm for it. While people are researching it, they’re also stumbling upon tweets like: 1. Why not harness the opportunity to show Secret Network can make non-private assets private?
I see both of these assets as a value-add because of the enthusiasm they bring wherever they go. Secret, as we all know, also has rabid (in a good way!) fans.
Finally, I think graying them out is a drastic step. If you want there to be a minimum support for a channel before allowing them on wrap.scrt.network, that’s a great idea and I support it… but without previous communication about the requirement it feels unwarranted.