Skip to content
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

Smart Account Support #19

Open
alexmmueller opened this issue Jun 6, 2024 · 5 comments
Open

Smart Account Support #19

alexmmueller opened this issue Jun 6, 2024 · 5 comments
Labels
Type: Feature Added to issues and PRs to identify that the change is a new feature.

Comments

@alexmmueller
Copy link
Member

alexmmueller commented Jun 6, 2024

We currently return transaction data to the user in the form of an EOA. We also enable support for SmartAccounts via UserOps.

Requirements:

  • Simple: Simply convert a tx -> userOp so a paymaster can pay on behalf of the user.
  • Hard: For token transfers, batch approve + transfer functions into the transaction

Blockers:
There is no standard interface for building userOps and we need to monitor a few EIPs to do this correctly.

@mpetrunic mpetrunic added Status: Needs Clarification Added to issues that are not clearly understood, and require additional input. Type: Feature Added to issues and PRs to identify that the change is a new feature. labels Jun 11, 2024
@GregTheGreek
Copy link
Member

@mpetrunic Updated a bit

@mpetrunic
Copy link
Member

I don't think we are blocked for simple solution as we can follow 4337?
Also simple solution is probably not that much work.

@GregTheGreek
Copy link
Member

Agreed! Let's do simple 4337

Chatted with Sequence, sending approvals + transactions as vanilla ERC20 (EOA style) works for them since the bundler handles it. So B3 SCW should be trivial

@mpetrunic mpetrunic removed the Status: Needs Clarification Added to issues that are not clearly understood, and require additional input. label Jun 19, 2024
@GregTheGreek
Copy link
Member

TBH I wonder if we need to do this at the API level, or we do this at the JS level? We provide all the necessary information, and you could use something like permissionless.js or native SCW provider to just handle everytihng

@mpetrunic
Copy link
Member

Yeah, I think it's best if we do it in sdk, to not slow down api with userOps which may not be used

@mpetrunic mpetrunic transferred this issue from another repository Jul 16, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Type: Feature Added to issues and PRs to identify that the change is a new feature.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants