Clarification Request: InterLink Chain's Claimed Involvement in the IBC Contribution to Linux Foundation

Start Here
1

Hello Cosmos community,

I would like to ask for clarification regarding a recent public statement made by an account associated with InterLink Chain (@kv_interlink on X).

In a November 10, 2026 post, the account stated:

“The decision by Interlinkchain and @cosmos to contribute IBC, a protocol that has processed over $50 billion in transaction volume since 2021, to an initiative under the @linuxfoundation…”

The post then discussed potential opportunities for InterLink Chain through IBC, including cross-chain interoperability for ITLG and ITL, high-performance infrastructure, quantum-resistant security, and enterprise adoption.

However, after reviewing the official Cosmos announcement published on November 9, 2026, I noticed something that I would like to clarify.

The official announcement identifies Cosmos and the Interchain Foundation as the organizations contributing the Inter-Blockchain Communication (IBC) protocol to Linux Foundation Decentralized Trust.

It also identifies Cosmos Labs, Datachain, and OpenZeppelin as the protocol’s code maintainers.

I could not find InterLink Labs or InterLink Foundation identified as an official co-contributor in the announcement.

This raises several questions:

1. Official Participation

Did InterLink Labs or InterLink Foundation actually participate in the contribution of IBC to Linux Foundation Decentralized Trust? If so, what was their specific role?

2. Relationship with Cosmos

Does an official partnership, collaboration agreement, or technical cooperation agreement between InterLink and Cosmos or the Interchain Foundation exist?

3. Actual IBC Integration

Has InterLink Chain implemented IBC or established a verified connection with an IBC-enabled network? Are there public repositories, technical documentation, channel identifiers, or verifiable cross-chain transactions demonstrating this integration?

4. Contributor Recognition

Is InterLink officially recognized as an IBC contributor, maintainer, or participating organization under the new Linux Foundation governance structure?

5. Public Communication

If InterLink is discussing future IBC integration opportunities rather than an existing contribution, should its public statements distinguish between its own roadmap and the achievements of the established IBC ecosystem?

I want to emphasize that I am not questioning whether InterLink can potentially integrate IBC in the future. Open-source interoperability standards are designed to encourage broader adoption and collaboration.

My concern is simply about accurate attribution, transparency, and distinguishing between an organization’s own technical contributions and its potential use of an existing open-source protocol.

I believe these distinctions are important for developers, investors, community members, and anyone evaluating blockchain projects.

I would appreciate clarification from Cosmos contributors or anyone familiar with the IBC governance transition.

Official references:

Thank you for taking the time to clarify this.

2

Hi! I cannot find an official mention on InterLink’s official accounts, and InterLink is not mentioned or included in the announcement made by the ICF and Cosmos, and there is no relationship that I am aware of between both parties.

1 Like
3

Thank you for the clarification. I also wanted to provide an update: KV (@kv_interlink) has since deleted the original post claiming that InterLink Chain and Cosmos jointly contributed IBC to the Linux Foundation initiative.

This makes the situation even more important to clarify, especially since the original statement could have given the community a misleading impression of an official relationship or contribution.

I appreciate your confirmation that InterLink was not mentioned or included in the official announcement and that you are not aware of any relationship between the two parties.

Hopefully, this helps maintain transparency and accurate attribution within the broader blockchain community.

1 Like