-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2
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
Widget spending request explained #154
Comments
A note here, there is a near term goal of integrating permit2 contract which would reduce that to 0 approval requests in most cases (if you used uniswap or some other dapp utilizing it) and would just sign signature. But even in that case it would make sense to explain it like uniswap does: |
@haochizzle fyi sir - just something that we would need to add as part of the documentation for the widget the approval request (similar in the example Marin provided above for uniswap) |
here's a doc with the explainer: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BVna94-KzwVfar0zr8ousES63Pt2OBKLh3Av5y1e1zo/edit my suggestion is that we don't add this to the docs and where possible, we add this as a tooltip denoted by a tiny question mark |
Based on the discussion, Taha provided a design suggestion for displaying the short version of the approval description that we all liked. @sweetpea22, let us know if you want to change something with this UI suggestion. Higher resolution 👇 |
will EIP-3074 inclusion affect the approval flow in the widget in the future? |
Context: When a user wants to transfer a Token Type that uses the Percentage Fee Handler, it is requested to allow spending, more than once. It takes a request for a portion of the token to be spent as fee, by a contract, and the rest ( as the transfer amount) to be spend by another contract ( triggering a new request for allow spending).
On EVM chains, this is some how common behavior, but usually everything comes in one spending request. ( signing a single allowance). Our current behavior might be confusing, so we need to inform the user of the allow spending steps/requests, so it is a clear behavior.
See the below GIF to understand how it is now:
CC: @itsbobbyzzz168
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: