wishes to retain at rank1
5d ago
0

Argument-0005: Retention at Rank I

Report Date 2025/11/24
Submitted by Daniel Shiposha

Member details

  • Matrix username: @mrshiposha:matrix.org
  • Polkadot address: 14aC2hfNZTX4sMHPh47MjGB4Vr4rVYHZgBid54vRKrZVBZQY
  • Current rank: Rank I
  • Date of initial induction: 2024/12/11
  • Date of last report: 2025/08/25
  • Area(s) of Expertise/Interest: XCM, NFT

Reporting period

  • Start date: 2025/09/29
  • End date: 2025/12/20

Argument

During the reporting period I focused my attention around XCM refactoring to make XCM more easily upgradable (without huge amount of copy-pasting) to new versions. This activity should eventually resolve the corresponding issue https://github.com/paritytech/polkadot-sdk/issues/7095.

I initially started by picking up the existing work done by Bryan Chen and tried to finish it. But it became clear that this approach demands a lot of changes accross all the Polkadot SDK.

So, I decided to find an alternative (but similar) approach to minimize the changes in the SDK and contain them purely within polkadot/xcm.

I came up with a proc-macro approach which should:

  • help us generate most of the conversion logic automatically
  • provide a clear instruction definition in one place
  • maintain Bryan's idea of having instructions as individual structs so we can implement their execution logic separately (as well as test them that way)
    • the individual structs should also allow us to implement special conversions granularly, without implementing the trivial ones by hand
  • provide good enough balance between clarity and automation

For details see this gist with a commented example of how the usage of the #[versioned] proc-macro might look like. You can see an early implementation draft here: https://github.com/UniqueNetwork/polkadot-sdk/tree/xcm-refactor. Note that this is WIP and may change in the future.

Voting record

Provide your voting record in relation to required thresholds for your rank.

Ranks Activity thresholds Agreement thresholds Member's voting activities Comments
I 90% N/A There were no referenda I was eligible to vote on.
II 80% N/A
III 70% 100%
IV 60% 90%
V 50% 80%
VI 40% 70%
Reply
Up
Share
#440·
Comments