Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
How this works - Standard App Store IAP APIs—including the 30% fee - Warpcast app generates a transaction( since the user has their Farcaster mnemonic loaded) - Once IAP is confirmed, we use a Warpcast backend service that has some ETH in wallet to pay for the txn https://warpcast.com/dwr.eth/0x247ccf
9 replies
3 recasts
26 reactions
sean
@swabbie.eth
Is this 4337 (you're acting as bundler), or standard relay?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
EOA + basic Warpcast backend service with an Ethereum hot wallet in AWS (we top up the wallet occasionally)
2 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
sean
@swabbie.eth
Sounds like relayed metatransaction, so since the user isn't msg.sender, you're mostly limited to your own contracts or ERC-2771 compatible contracts? point being - you aren't able to simply allow us to call Uniswap, etc? Perhaps you can use the EOAs as owners on a 4337 wallet & WC sends signed UserOps to a bundler?
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
Ayush
@ayushm.eth
hmm, they can call uniswap using the aws hot wallet, right? (or maybe, i don't get the question) i imagine the current model as a basic fiat to eth exchange lol
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
sean
@swabbie.eth
Yea, if the AWS wallet calls UniswapV2, for example, it would read the AWS wallet as msg.sender. You'd need to call a contract that uses some method to unwrap and verify the carried signed message to confirm intent from the message signer rather than the tx sender. https://www.alchemy.com/overviews/meta-transactions
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
sean
@swabbie.eth
But ERC-4337 solves this problem. The Farcaster EOA would just need to sign a message in the format of a UserOperation and also be the owner of a 4337-compatible wallet, and then Warpcast could pay the bundler to execute the tx (or act as bundler themselves) and FC users would be able to call contracts as expected.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
