Should a wallet's list of Supported Chains allow Testnet or Upcoming chains?

[JeremyParish69]

1) Some wallets may want to include testnets in their list of supported chains.

• There seems to be some value in including this in some way, but there might be some confusion when mixing them up with mainnet chains.
• We could consider a way to indicate that those chains are testnets. Note that not all testnets are registered as "[mainnet chain net] + 'testnet" (e.g., 'osmosistestnet'), so the name might not be sufficient. We could use a separate array (e.g., 'supported_testnet_chains')?
• We could also just leave it up to the chain registry to clarify whether a chain is a mainnet or testnet.

2) Also, some submissions may want to submit PRs listing chains they will soon be adding to save on the time.

• My initial opinion on this is the not allow 'soon' info, but only current info.

3) Want to confirm opinion that we should require that all chains be registered to the chain registry.

[JeremyParish69]

@pyramation , thoughts?

[pyramation]

1. Some wallets may want to include testnets in their list of supported chains.

I can't see why they would support testnets officially? I'd suggest against it. But this is just my initial thought! Maybe others would disagree.

3. Want to confirm opinion that we should require that all chains be registered to the chain registry.

Definitely and names should map to an existing chain_name

[JeremyParish69]

IMHO, the inclusion of testnets has more to do with technical capability than it does with public perceived of official support. So I'm thinking when a dApp offers interaction with testnets, that should still be able to query for compatible wallets.

With the recent shift at the chain registry to suffix testnet chain names with 'testnet', the potential confusion brought up in point (1) should no longer be a worry.