Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Features/sma 329 improve repo #49
Features/sma 329 improve repo #49
Changes from 9 commits
9378533
cd4a963
132680d
f2b3d04
04edd80
9170422
445b570
b486de2
44ccb3b
f338697
baad7ca
d3fa24c
d79fa81
cb813f0
0ae429e
ac6c7f7
0dabf4d
37b7bf1
0d40317
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
is -> are
would be good to talk about ERC4337 paymasters on the high level maybe with some flow diagrams.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
check some content from here
https://erc4337.mirror.xyz/7DUTUn2eNrjvum3tWAnRih8576IrX13E6WnZeADvAHQ
https://erc4337.mirror.xyz/RKG9kt7af3B_Dj0KHjuhwOOpEP6JxLXr-2vW4DOlhQM
there are also some articles by alchemy and visa
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
can just limit to gas abstraction. then talk about kind of paymaster we already have or we plan to have with gas abstraction (how) aspect of each
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Maybe highlight, that users still pay by themselves with token paymaster and token paymaster allows not having native token
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
nvm, I see that this is explained later
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
refer to ERC20 paymaster design notion doc
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Technically Paymaster doesn't forward the transaction. It just pays for the userOp.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I suggest changing txns to userOps everywhere
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Maybe I'm missing something, but I find it a bit confusing, that we have it named 'Sponsorship Paymaster', however I can't find Sponsorship Paymaster in the repo.
I understand Verifying Paymaster is not the best name, Sponsorship Paymaster is much better , but I think need some consistency between readme and file names here
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
You're right @filmakarov, I found the references to 'Sponsorship Paymaster' in both Biconomy blog and official documentation.
I agree 'Sponsorship Paymaster' sounds like a better name to me too. Let's bring this up with the team for further discussion.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Should we describe that to sponsor a userOp, paymaster still needs signature by verifying party that reviews userOps before agreeing to pay for it