docs(sip-03): drop Wormhole bridge-out route, document Prop 120#47
Conversation
Remove the "bridge out via Wormhole (Portal Bridge legacy)" option from the SIP-03 IBC Asset Migration Table. The 5 Wormhole-bridged assets (USDCso, WETH, USDCet, USDCop, USDTbs) remain listed as affected so holders still see they must act, but the action drops the Wormhole reference and the route now points to support instead of Portal Bridge (legacy). Added an Info note explaining the route was removed. Also document governance Proposal #120 (Re-disable IBC Inbound) alongside Prop 116 wherever the SIP-03 proposals are listed together: the migration guide's proposal list, cosmos-sdk/index, and evm/differences-with-ethereum. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
PR SummaryLow Risk Overview On the IBC Asset Migration Table, the five Wormhole-bridged assets still appear as requiring action, but Portal Bridge (legacy) is removed as the documented route: actions no longer say “via Wormhole,” routes show Contact support, and a new Info callout tells holders to use Sei Tech Chat / Discord for current options. Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit 83127c1. Bugbot is set up for automated code reviews on this repo. Configure here. |
|
Preview deployment for your docs. Learn more about Mintlify Previews.
💡 Tip: Enable Workflows to automatically generate PRs for you. |
![github-actions[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/15368?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Documentation-only PR that drops the deprecated Portal Bridge (legacy) route from the SIP-03 Wormhole assets and documents governance Proposal #120 across three pages. Changes are accurate and safe to merge; the main notes concern the "re-disables" framing and a tense inconsistency the author already flagged.
Findings: 0 blocking | 5 non-blocking | 1 posted inline
Blockers
- None at the file/PR level.
Non-blocking
- Tense inconsistency (author already flagged this): Prop #116 is still described in the future tense ("After this passes and is activated") in all three files, but Prop #120 is described as PASSED and as "re-disabling" inbound IBC. Readers see a proposal that has passed following up on one that supposedly hasn't yet — worth reconciling the tense for #116 in a follow-up.
- Prop #120 is added to sip-03-migration.mdx, cosmos-sdk/index.mdx, and evm/differences-with-ethereum.mdx, but (per the author's own note) not to dev-interoperability.mdx or the CosmWasm precompile pages that mention #116. Consider covering those for consistency in a follow-up.
- Second-opinion passes produced no output: ./codex-review.md and ./cursor-review.md are both empty, and ./REVIEW_GUIDELINES.md is empty, so no repo-specific guidelines were applied.
- Content decision (not a bug): five Wormhole-bridged assets now list "Contact support" instead of an actionable route. This is reasonable given Portal Bridge legacy is deprecated, but it leaves holders without a concrete self-serve path — confirm this matches the intended support posture.
- 1 suggestion(s)/nit(s) flagged inline on specific lines.
|
|
||
| - Governance [Proposal #116](https://www.mintscan.io/sei/proposals/116) — disables inbound IBC transfers. After this passes and is activated, IBC assets bridged from Cosmos chains can no longer arrive on Sei. | ||
|
|
||
| - Governance [Proposal #120](https://www.mintscan.io/sei/proposals/120) — re-disables inbound IBC transfers by setting the `ibc` module's `InboundEnabled` parameter to `false`, leaving outbound IBC unchanged. Follows up on Proposal #116. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
[suggestion] The word "re-disables" is confusing without context: it implies inbound IBC was re-enabled at some point between Prop #116 and #120. Since the doc above still describes #116 in the future tense (not yet activated), a reader can't tell why #120 needs to "re-disable" something not yet disabled. Consider a brief clarification (e.g. what changed between #116 and #120) or wording that doesn't presuppose a prior re-enable.
|
Preview deployment for your docs. Learn more about Mintlify Previews.
💡 Tip: Enable Workflows to automatically generate PRs for you. |
1 participant
What is the purpose of the change?
Correct/update existing SIP-03 migration documentation: remove the deprecated Wormhole "bridge out" option and add the newly-passed governance Proposal #120.
Describe the changes to the documentation
1. Drop the Wormhole bridge-out route from the IBC Asset Migration Table (
learn/sip-03-migration.mdx)The 5 Wormhole-bridged assets (USDCso, WETH, USDCet, USDCop, USDTbs) remain listed as affected — so holders still see they need to act — but:
<Info>note explaining Portal Bridge (legacy) is no longer a listed route and directing affected holders to Sei Tech Chat / Discord.The top
<Danger>callout and the homepage were intentionally left unchanged, since those assets remain in the table.2. Document Proposal #120 alongside Prop 116 wherever the SIP-03 proposals are listed together:
learn/sip-03-migration.mdx— added to the<Info>proposal list.cosmos-sdk/index.mdx— added to the prose next to Prop 116.evm/differences-with-ethereum.mdx— added to the prose next to Prop 116.Prop 120 = "Re-disable IBC Inbound" (sets the
ibcmoduleInboundEnabledparam tofalse, leaving outbound unchanged; status PASSED, voting ended 2026-07-20), framed as the follow-up to Prop 116.Notes
llms.txt/llms-full.txtwere intentionally not regenerated.scripts/generate-llms.mjsfetches from the livedocs.sei.iosite, so regenerating pre-deploy would pull stale content. The scheduledregenerate-llms.ymlworkflow (weekly, or manual dispatch) will refresh them after this merges and publishes.dev-interoperability.mdx/ the CosmWasm precompile pages, which mention 116 but not the full proposal set.🤖 Generated with Claude Code