[Add App] Relay

[pedromcunha]

Entry type

• New addition

App info

URL: https://relay.link

Manifest.json URL: https://relay.link/manifest.json

Name: Relay

Description: Instant, low-cost bridging and swapping, powered by Reservoir

Icon (PNG, 180x180): https://mintlify.s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/unevenlabs/logo/relay-black.svg
It's minified via https://tinypng.com: no

Homepage:
Twitter: https://x.com/RelayProtocol
GitHub: https://github.com/reservoirprotocol

App supports batching multiple transactions via Safe: yes (Assuming dynamic support is automatically handling this)

Supported networks

- Mainnet
- Base
- Optimism
- Scroll
- Solana
- Eclipse
- Bitcoin

and many more!

Revision checks

• Used smart contracts were audited.
• You have implemented the app using the Safe Apps SDK
• Your Safe App includes a manifest.json file at the root with the required data
• The app can be loaded as a custom Safe App in the Apps section of https://app.safe.global.
• The app auto-connects to the Safe as a wallet
• It doesn't try to connect to the browser wallet (e.g. MetaMask)
• You are able to trigger and execute one transaction with a Safe.
• RPC requests are optimized (not triggering many requests in a very short time period).

Audit document

Not yet audited

Code for review

SDK/UI kit: https://github.com/reservoirprotocol/relay-kit

Team information

Company: Reservoir

Official website: https://reservoir.tools

Point of contact: Pedro Cunha https://github.com/pedromcunha

Email/Telegram: [email protected]

[kirkkonen]

This submission is approved by the wallet product team.

[tmjssz]

Hi @pedromcunha, for the code review, could you please point me to the parts of your app's source code that integrates with Safe? I am not able to find the corresponding code in the provided repo: https://github.com/reservoirprotocol/relay-kit

[pedromcunha]

Hi, we use dynamic in our private repo, which uses the kit but the connection aspect is powered by dynamic. It's my understanding that dynamic uses the safe sdk under the hood

[tmjssz]

Ok can you invite @tmjssz to the private repo so I can review it as well?

[PooyaRaki]

@pedromcunha We’re still waiting for you to grant us access to the private repository so we can review the code.

[pedromcunha]

Hi, I Invited this user: https://github.com/tmjssz

Is that not the right user or do I need to add someone else?

[PooyaRaki]

@pedromcunha
Hi,
Thank you for confirming.
We’ll be in touch with you shortly.

[tmjssz]

I reviewed the code and the only suggestion for improvement would be to introduce basic unit test coverage. Otherwise it looks good to me and we can proceed with QA.

[francovenica]

I've done a couple of tx and it works fine.

https://app.safe.global/transactions/tx?safe=eth:0x8675B754342754A30A2AeF474D114d8460bca19b&id=multisig_0x8675B754342754A30A2AeF474D114d8460bca19b_0xaa885db5121623eadcce567f1f4969edc1f0c0fba992a644d288123c6bbbac6b

https://app.safe.global/transactions/tx?safe=eth:0x642830Ac2F1984C3D954051949cDf85A02F87480&id=multisig_0x642830Ac2F1984C3D954051949cDf85A02F87480_0x884f743a03047551871d3f9998a49246ff974d7a9a8c375d9a1d2f144f9bfd7e

Still discussing things with the team. I'll be done shortly

[pedromcunha]

Ok great, we do have unit tests for the inner workings of the client (relay sdk and ui kit), this is where the main app logic is housed to make it open source and easier to port into other applications: https://github.com/reservoirprotocol/relay-kit
We have a number of unit tests testing the critical flows. We have 48 tests running on every push to main: https://github.com/reservoirprotocol/relay-kit/actions/runs/12186578865/job/33995400910

[francovenica]

@pedromcunha Hi there. question, how plausible would be to implement an "empty option" for the address recipient? the reason is that most of our users have safes that are unique to that network, so is a risk for them having the recipient to be that same safe address in another network.

Another question. I see that the "Audit document" section in this ticket says that it wasn't audited yet. Is that so?

Thanks

[pedromcunha]

Oh that's interesting. We require a recipient and the logic is such that it will automatically preset the destination recipient. So you're saying that these addresses are locked down to a particular chain? For instance one address for base and another address for ethereum?

Re audit, yes we haven't done any audits on our contracts but it's on our roadmap. Likely sometime next year we'll make some actions towards that but I don't have any concrete timelines.

[francovenica]

Eveb tho we currently allow safes to be deployed in different networks (same address in different networks I mean) most of the old safes were created in a single network and don't have (and cannot have) that same address deployed in another network. That's why our suggestion would be to be able to leave that field empty so the user don't use the feature without checking that address first.
This is more of a suggestion than a request, so if you say that is more work than is worth it we understand.

Regarding the audit, is something that I need to approve the app from my side.

[pedromcunha]

So are you saying that audits are required before you can approve us?

[PooyaRaki]

@pedromcunha Yes, Audits are required to approve a new Safe app.