I appreciate this initiative to improve UX for USDS, however, I believe that decisions around the bridge should come from Offchain Labs, and I would rather them even propose the change.
OCL is best positioned to evaluate if this causes any weird edge cases to the bridge and would ask that future initiatives get their tacit approval, before wasting your time and the community’s time with these minor, yet critical technical changes.
If OCL supports it we all will.
Hey @griff, we appreciate your concerns, please kindly note, that under the hood of this proposal both OCL and SKY were collaborating on this work, so both entities are fully aware of this situation and amount of work needs to be done to implement it.
Really excited about this proposal for integrating USDS/sUSDS into the Arbitrum Bridge. This integration stands to benefit both Arbitrum and Spark by providing users with a smoother, more efficient bridging experience—making it easier for new users to onboard and further solidifying Arbitrum’s position as a leading DeFi hub.
I also appreciate that multiple security audits have been conducted, which gives us greater confidence in the security and robustness of the implementation.
I agree with @Griff that this is essential, and it’s reassuring to know that OCL has its eyes on it. This collaboration and rigorous approach is exactly what we need to drive meaningful innovation while maintaining security across the ecosystem.
We’re approving this proposal because it’s logical and necessary, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t important questions to address.
What guarantees are there that SKY cannot arbitrarily modify gateways, such as freezing funds, without DAO approval? How does this ensure that the benefits don’t tilt more toward Spark/SKY rather than the broader Arbitrum ecosystem?
If SKY leaves the project, how is the continuity of the gateways and the USDS/sUSDS tokens ensured? Does this set a precedent for other projects requesting custom gateways? If so, is the DAO ready to handle such requests?
Lastly, while the proposal is clear and necessary, it almost feels like it cannot be rejected because there are no real alternatives for moving USDS/sUSDS. We are concerned that immediate utility might take priority over the long-term health of the ecosystem. Can we refine the DAO’s criteria for approving gateways? Will there be official guidelines for this, or is this being handled as a one-off case?
On behalf of the UADP, We think Integrating USDS and sUSDS tokens into the Arbitrum Bridge by registering the Sky Custom Gateway contracts in the Router is a strategic move that enhances user experience and expands the stablecoin ecosystem on Arbitrum. By enabling seamless bridging through the official Arbitrum Bridge UI, users can efficiently access and utilize these tokens, fostering greater adoption and liquidity within the network. This integration not only simplifies the bridging process but also aligns with Arbitrum’s commitment to providing diverse and robust financial instruments to its community.
Overall, implementing this proposal would position Arbitrum as a more versatile platform for stablecoin transactions, benefiting both users and the broader DeFi ecosystem. We don’t see any downsides to this.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
This proposal is similar to the request that Rari proposed, where the setGateways() function was called on the L1GatewayRouter contract to register token gateways. Since most tokens that bridge to Arbitrum would need to come to the DAO with a proposal every time and ultimately, DAO delegates will have to rely on technical responses from OCL and the AF, why not allow OCL or AF to handle such requests directly for a period of 12 months?
They could submit a quarterly or bi-annual report or update in a dedicated post listing all the tokens added to the L1GatewayRouter contract. This would streamline the process and be similar to how power is delegated to elected/nominated entities for other programs like DIP, DAO Allocator Program, Stylus Sprint, and TMC.
As pointed out by most delegates, this proposal is a win-win for both Arbitrum and Sky. We welcome this initiative and hope to see a more structured process for future proposals.
I support this proposal overall—it solves a real issue and improves the user experience. But before moving forward, I’d like more clarity on security audits.
As a non-technical person, I want to understand how we can be sure there are no risks in the Sky Custom Gateway. Has this contract been audited by a reputable firm? If yes, can we see the report? If not, will SKY commit to an audit before implementation?
Security is a major concern when bridging assets, and I’d feel more comfortable if we had a clear risk assessment before making this change. If SKY can provide this assurance, I’m fully on board.
Thank you, @SpikeWatanabe.eth, for this proposal.
This is a promising step forward for both Arbitrum’s ecosystem and the broader DeFi space. SKY’s pioneering work in DeFi has consistently driven innovation, and integrating their custom gateway contracts for USDS and sUSDS directly aligns with our shared vision of growing and enhancing the Arbitrum DeFi landscape. By streamlining the bridging process, we simplify user experience and expand the stablecoin ecosystem on Arbitrum, a key driver for increased adoption.
We appreciate that the code has undergone rigorous security audits by industry leaders like ChainSecurity, Cantina, and Certora, with Offchain Labs’ direct involvement. This collaborative vetting process adds a key layer of trust and integrity to the initiative.
relatively low risk (no user funds can be lost) as I understand, correct? (worst case users have to send fun backs to mainnet and then bridge again)
So in favour although I do have some concerns about how to manage things like this moving forward if the volume of requests increases (something to discuss another day)
Sky ecosystem owns the custom gateway, and the USDS, sUSDS tokens. Arbitrum DAO would not have any influence on the protocols governed by the Sky ecosystem.
There wouldn’t be a scenario where Sky Ecosystem would deprecate the custom gateways independently of the tokens, as they were deployed together as a single package and would likely be deprecated together as well.
The standard gateways do not work because both USDS and sUSDS tokens on Ethereum are upgradeable, and the only way to maintain their upgradeability on Arbitrum is through the use of custom gateways.
It appears that this matter is better addressed to Arbitrum DAO delegates.
Yes, more audits would certainly help.
The implementation timeline depends on input from multiple stakeholders across both the Sky and Arbitrum ecosystems. We are actively working with them and will share more detailed plan in the due course of events.
As one of the first steps, we have proactively collaborated with Offchain Labs, who have blocked all bridging for USDS and sUSDS from Ethereum to Arbitrum through the default gateways before the custom gateways launch to ensure users do not use the standard gateways in the first place. We’ll take more steps in the future to smooth out the process.
Sky Ecosystem has made a significant investment in developing custom gateways and is committed to maintaining and supporting these gateways over the long term.
It appears that this matter is better to be decided among DAO delegates.
We’ve had the code for the Sky custom gateways audited by ChainSecurity and Cantina. If you’d like to dive into the details, you can check out their reports here:
On top of that, we also used Certora to formally verify the code. You can explore all the formal verification specifications here:
https://github.com/makerdao/arbitrum-token-bridge/tree/master/certora
Sky Ecosystem maintains a set of general emergency response procedures to handle urgent situations like exploits. While this document isn’t gateway-specific, you can view the Sky Atlas Emergency Response System, maintained by Powerhouse, here:
The following reflects the views of GMX’s Governance Committee, and is based on the combined research, evaluation, consensus, and ideation of various committee members.
Sky’s proposition of registering its USDS and sUSDS tokens into the L1GatewayRouter is a move in a positive direction for further adoption of a decentralised yield-bearing stablecoins. This integration in the Arbitrum Bridge UI improves utilisation of Sky and in tandem Spark’s yield opportunities across it’s lending platform. Having already deployed $100M USDS and $100M sUSDS on Arbitrum, it further exemplifies Sky’s move to distinguish itself on Arbitrum’s ecosystem.
It’s evident following it’s success on Base, this move aligns with Arbitrum’s protocol, and offers existing protocols the capability to spawn new facets of DeFi including for GMX, through yield-accruing collateralised derivative positions.
Therefore we are in accordance and agree with this implementation and introduction of the Sky’s registration in the Router contracts.
Voted For: Sky/Maker has a great reputation in crypto, especially among users who have been in this space for some time. This is why it is great to see the integration of the Arbitrum chain (besides Ethereum, Base, and Gnosis). Our reputation with a combination of Sky and Spark can bring a lot more uses to Arbitrum.
I believe that the necessary upgrade in this proposal to update the router is a small effort to really increase users’ experience when onboarding sUSD and USDS. There is no cost related to this proposal, only work from both the Sky and Arbitrum teams. Both teams have already confirmed they are willing to work together to implement this.
Hello everyone, thank you very much for your questions and feedback, it was important for us to understand community sentiment. It appeared that overall consensus was more or less positive, we’ll proceed to post it on snapshot on Thursday.
I decided to vote “For” on Snapshot, based on the rationale outlined in my previous comment and considering that OCL has also expressed support for this initiative.
Sky (Maker) has consistently demonstrated its value and capability over the years, and I believe their proposal will be a enhancement to the existing DeFi ecosystem on Arbitrum.
I’m particularly pleased to see the emergence of more yield opportunities on-chain. Expanding these yield-generating products is really key to attract more users and liquidity!!!
Apologies everyone, but we overlooked Thursday posting schedule. We decided to cancel the proposal and repost it on Thursday, so that everyone would have enough time to evaluate and vote.
I’m excited about this deployment. Arbitrum’s strong liquidity and DeFi ecosystem make it a natural partner for SKY.
Procedurally, shouldn’t this be a constitutional proposal? It’s my understanding that the onchain proposal would need to be submitted to the Core Governor.
It would be helpful to better understand the potential risks surrounding changes to the Arbitrum Ecosystem Router. I assume there are significant risks and that’s why these changes go through governance (if there aren’t risks, we should come up with a more efficient process).
I am in favor of this proposal. It seems like a win-win for Arbitrum and SKY. This partnership will strengthen the ecosystem, serving as a “simple yet crucial technical solution” to improve interoperability and the user experience on Arbitrum. I look forward to seeing the detailed implementation timeline. I trust the project and its transparency, as ChainSecurity has established an impressive track record as an auditor for high-profile blockchain projects. One of their most notable successes is the audit of the MakerDAO protocol. On the other hand, Cantina has demonstrated its expertise in auditing blockchain projects, such as its work with Aave, one of the leading decentralized lending protocols.
Between Sky’s recent launch/expansion to Arbitrum and Maker’s longstanding success and reputation in the space, we believe this is a worthwhile proposal.
In light of this proposal and similar past approvals (e.g., RARI’s custom gateway integration), we’d like to suggest an enhancement to the Arbitrum Bridge UI: a DAO-Approved Token List and Verified Gateway Badge.
Given that certain tokens require explicit governance approval for custom Router gateways, it would be beneficial to:
Create a DAO-Approved Token List that includes all tokens formally approved by the DAO for bridging, allowing users to filter for officially recognized assets. This is the current set of token lists that can be enabled on the official Arbitrum Bridge UI:
Introduce a Verified DAO Badge next to these tokens in the Arbitrum Bridge UI, linking to the governance proposal that approved them. This could look similar to the official Arbitrum token badge:
This would enhance user trust, transparency, and security while also providing projects an incentive to align with DAO-approved infrastructure. It ensures users are informed when bridging assets and helps prevent reliance on unverified bridge paths.
Yes that is correct, it is a constitutional proposal, thank you for pointing this out.
In DeFi everything is risky to an extent, from our perspective it is a very straightforward change, which’s been implemented in the past by the likes of Rari. Those changes go through governance, because the Arbitrum DAO governance system owns those functions, which can make the change. On the risk assessment side, we are going to be following OFC guidance, to make sure everything is done correctly and audited.
We appreciate your opinion, it is a very interesting suggestion. As far as standardization of that process is concerned, it is out of our hands, since it is something that DAO needs to agree on collectively and implement.
you mean @offchainlabs guidance?
