# \[Proposal\] Whitelist tokens manually for Polaris integration **URL:** \ **Category:** Governance Ops\ **Created:** [27 October 2025 22:55 UTC](https://forum.namada.net/t/proposal-whitelist-tokens-manually-for-polaris-integration/1883 "2025-10-27T22:55:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![brentstone](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex017/user_avatar/forum.namada.net/brentstone/32/464_2.png) [@brentstone](https://forum.namada.net/u/brentstone)\ **Post date:** [27 October 2025 22:55 UTC](https://forum.namada.net/t/proposal-whitelist-tokens-manually-for-polaris-integration/1883/1 "2025-10-27T22:55:58Z")
Hi everyone, I’d like to start a proposal for helping the Polaris integration move forward before we are able to upgrade the mainnet to v201.0.X. After the upgrade, we may be able to whitelist all tokens across a specified IBC channel connection with infinite rate limits with a single line of code, but before then a manual solution is required. Fortunately, whitelisting about 116 tokens from the Osmosis connection (`channel-1`) would help get this integration off the ground without the bottleneck described, and it can be done easily in a single proposal. I’m proposing to upgrade the mainnet with [this code](https://github.com/namada-net/namada-governance-upgrades/blob/8866d62e0a56238e136dbef5492d3fe408e8993b/proposals/mainnet/manual-whitelist-polaris/src/lib.rs). It can be easily read to discern the tokens for whitelist. Furthermore, I’d like to whitelist USDC (Osmosis) for gas payment, which is important for Polaris’s fee UX. The rate limits are currently set to a generic high number, in this case 1B whole units of each token (e.g. 1B ETH, 1B BTC). This can be tuned more finely if desired. This code has been tested on Housefire testnet with Proposal [#83](https://testnet.namadillo.app/governance/proposal/83) and [this code](https://github.com/namada-net/namada-governance-upgrades/blob/7b808df7dfd92259a8341299698d9136a225fc54/proposals/testnet/test-polaris-whitelist/src/lib.rs) specifically. The same tokens we would like to whitelist for mainnet are currently whitelisted on Housefire testnet. You can query the rate limits for each one with `namadac query-ibc-rate-limits --token $TOKEN` and can test shielding, I’ve done so a bit myself. It would be nice to get this proposal on-chain soon if there is agreement, so please share your thoughts! ---
**Author:** ![preto](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex017/user_avatar/forum.namada.net/preto/32/1097_2.png) [@preto](https://forum.namada.net/u/preto)\ **Post date:** [28 October 2025 00:09 UTC](https://forum.namada.net/t/proposal-whitelist-tokens-manually-for-polaris-integration/1883/2 "2025-10-28T00:09:23Z")
In support. Re osmosis USDC I wonder if that could cause issues with Namadillo and ibc out to different networks (we need to perhaps distinguish between Noble-originated usdc and Osmo-originated USDC). ---
**Author:** ![Daniel](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex017/user_avatar/forum.namada.net/daniel/32/186_2.png) [@Daniel](https://forum.namada.net/u/Daniel)\ **Post date:** [28 October 2025 02:54 UTC](https://forum.namada.net/t/proposal-whitelist-tokens-manually-for-polaris-integration/1883/3 "2025-10-28T02:54:06Z")
We support it, but, actually, Osmosis is using Noble USDC, so if we whitelist Osmosis USDC (coming from Noble) to be able to pay gas fees, we would ending up having two versions/denoms of the same USDC asset in Namada - it’s not an ideal scenario. If it’s important for Polaris’ fee UX, I think we do need to find an alternative way ---
**Author:** ![brentstone](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex017/user_avatar/forum.namada.net/brentstone/32/464_2.png) [@brentstone](https://forum.namada.net/u/brentstone)\ **Post date:** [28 October 2025 04:54 UTC](https://forum.namada.net/t/proposal-whitelist-tokens-manually-for-polaris-integration/1883/4 "2025-10-28T04:54:41Z")
@Daniel why do you think this is not an ideal scenario? I see no reason why it typically matters that much. We don’t necessarily need to expose this token for gas payment in Namadillo, it can just stay as such in the protocol. Or at some point, we just tweak the design to make it super clear where all these tokens are from. I ultimately see zero issues doing this @preto @Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Daniel](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex017/user_avatar/forum.namada.net/daniel/32/186_2.png) [@Daniel](https://forum.namada.net/u/Daniel)\ **Post date:** [28 October 2025 05:48 UTC](https://forum.namada.net/t/proposal-whitelist-tokens-manually-for-polaris-integration/1883/5 "2025-10-28T05:48:26Z")
Well, if everything happens behind the scenes and that facilitates Polaris` fee UX, I don’t see major issues then - it was just that if the idea was to add it to Namadillo as well, that it would confuse users when it comes to use the correct USDC while interacting with the protocol. As you said, I think the best way would be tweak somewhat the design to be able to clearly distinguish the origin chains of overall assets in general, and perhaps restricting at UI level sending those to a chain that’s not the origin one. ---
**Author:** ![shurinov](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex017/user_avatar/forum.namada.net/shurinov/32/482_2.png) [@shurinov](https://forum.namada.net/u/shurinov)\ **Post date:** [30 October 2025 09:33 UTC](https://forum.namada.net/t/proposal-whitelist-tokens-manually-for-polaris-integration/1883/6 "2025-10-30T09:33:56Z")
👍 We support the addition of tokens. Strong integration with Osmosis assets is currently a quick way to spread Namada technology to existing DEX solutions. ---
**Author:** ![Gavin](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex017/user_avatar/forum.namada.net/gavin/32/16_2.png) [@Gavin](https://forum.namada.net/u/Gavin)\ **Post date:** [30 October 2025 14:54 UTC](https://forum.namada.net/t/proposal-whitelist-tokens-manually-for-polaris-integration/1883/7 "2025-10-30T14:54:23Z")
Speaking for Knowable, we’re in support 👍 Excited for this! When do you think the proposal will be launched, @brentstone? ---
**Author:** ![BidurS](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex017/user_avatar/forum.namada.net/bidurs/32/513_2.png) [@BidurS](https://forum.namada.net/u/BidurS)\ **Post date:** [30 October 2025 17:05 UTC](https://forum.namada.net/t/proposal-whitelist-tokens-manually-for-polaris-integration/1883/8 "2025-10-30T17:05:26Z")
As a small time Namada staker, i support. ---
**Author:** ![brentstone](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex017/user_avatar/forum.namada.net/brentstone/32/464_2.png) [@brentstone](https://forum.namada.net/u/brentstone)\ **Post date:** [30 October 2025 20:54 UTC](https://forum.namada.net/t/proposal-whitelist-tokens-manually-for-polaris-integration/1883/9 "2025-10-30T20:54:17Z")
Thanks for the positive feedback everyone! I’ve put this on-chain as Proposal [#35](https://www.namadillo.app/governance/proposal/35)! Voting will run for a week. ---
**Author:** ![zenodeapp](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex017/user_avatar/forum.namada.net/zenodeapp/32/265_2.png) [@zenodeapp](https://forum.namada.net/u/zenodeapp)\ **Post date:** [31 October 2025 09:17 UTC](https://forum.namada.net/t/proposal-whitelist-tokens-manually-for-polaris-integration/1883/10 "2025-10-31T09:17:48Z")
## Proposal #35 - Data hash [on-chain](https://www.namadillo.app/governance/proposal/35): `f8caf64ba1131a59882e859d39d4272230bc643c6d696f24a2241bab5f06f880` - Building `manual_whitelist_polaris.wasm` from commit [2f5636a](https://github.com/namada-net/namada-governance-upgrades/blob/2f5636aeeb26e8ac6922b3eaefeb91f9544d64fb/proposals/mainnet/manual-whitelist-polaris/src/lib.rs) using `earthly +build`: `f8caf64ba1131a59882e859d39d4272230bc643c6d696f24a2241bab5f06f880` **Result: hashes match ✅** * * * (in case any of you want to compare [Housefire](https://github.com/namada-net/namada-governance-upgrades/blob/7b808df7dfd92259a8341299698d9136a225fc54/proposals/testnet/test-polaris-whitelist/src/lib.rs) against [Mainnet](https://github.com/namada-net/namada-governance-upgrades/blob/2f5636aeeb26e8ac6922b3eaefeb91f9544d64fb/proposals/mainnet/manual-whitelist-polaris/src/lib.rs) code, see: [diffchecker](https://www.diffchecker.com/jWDFtgmw/) – in short: OSMO minimum gas price set to `None` and Penumbra removed due to [ambiguity](https://github.com/namada-net/namada-governance-upgrades/commit/dd7ee45cefa9a0ba0b6167b9894f18f562d9b1a2).) ---
**Author:** ![freQniK](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex017/user_avatar/forum.namada.net/freqnik/32/511_2.png) [@freQniK](https://forum.namada.net/u/freQniK)\ **Post date:** [2 November 2025 19:24 UTC](https://forum.namada.net/t/proposal-whitelist-tokens-manually-for-polaris-integration/1883/11 "2025-11-02T19:24:32Z")
MathNodes voted yay in favor of this proposal. If osmo/USDC is integrated into Namadillo, just give it a better display name, even “osmo/USDC” would be appropriate. Shouldn’t be any issues really. ---
**Author:** ![preto](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex017/user_avatar/forum.namada.net/preto/32/1097_2.png) [@preto](https://forum.namada.net/u/preto)\ **Post date:** [2 November 2025 20:40 UTC](https://forum.namada.net/t/proposal-whitelist-tokens-manually-for-polaris-integration/1883/12 "2025-11-02T20:40:02Z")
There are ways to fix it of course, the reason for bringing it up was that in earlier versions someone managed to send usdc from one network to another making it unusable before sending back. So just wanted to note that. (as per daniel’s comment too). I’m in favor of the proposal though.