Content pfp
Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

shazow pfp
shazow
@shazow.eth
How do people feel about onchain contracts including an optional fee that can be bolted on by frontends? Primarily to incentivize more third-party frontends to be developed. Are there better ways to do this?
8 replies
4 recasts
21 reactions

xh3b4sd ↑ pfp
xh3b4sd ↑
@xh3b4sd.eth
If you are using AA, which you probably should anyway for consumer crypto, then your frontend could simply take a fee from any deposit amount or whatever token balance is managed across all of those frontend specific actions. I don't think this has to happen on contract level, because the setup and complexity is horrible.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction

shazow pfp
shazow
@shazow.eth
Agreed. Though this assumes a defi application. What about utility applications, for example things like updating ENS fields?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

xh3b4sd ↑ pfp
xh3b4sd ↑
@xh3b4sd.eth
If we talk about infrastructure automation, then I would assume that this is simply part of the mechanism design, and then your answer is "it depends". Probably a case by case solution for which you implement your own registry and onboarding flow. Devil's in the detail's here I guess. I have never seen a great pattern for this.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction