FLIP: FCL Tx Payer Service

[JeffreyDoyle]

FLIP: FCL Tx Payer Service

[vercel]

This pull request is being automatically deployed with Vercel (learn more).
To see the status of your deployment, click below or on the icon next to each commit.

🔍 Inspect: https://vercel.com/onflow/flow-docs/2GCU6ynRrq9udqnVL71sX2nHdZ8h
✅ Preview: https://flow-docs-git-flip-fcl-tx-payer-service-onflow.vercel.app

[gregsantos]

Nice, thorough proposal 👍🏼

[bluesign]

very nice proposal, first time seeing FLIP here? what is the etiquette on commenting on FLIPS? Do we comment here?

[sifmoon]

Great stuff @JeffreyDoyle ! Most of my comments were abound the non-tech aspects. I want to make sure we make this FLiP extremely clear to ALL parties (PMs, engineers, business people). The beginning part of this we could workshop it a bit to make this really clear. The what and the why here should be super super clear to get interest from outside parties.

May be good to get @laynelafrance's eyes on this too from a functional perspective. @laynelafrance can you read this from the POV of 'I am a freelance product person and I am trying to understand why I would do this and the longevity of if I make this into a business.'

[bluesign]

If there will be rate limits, blacklists, and transaction verification, etc will be needed anyway, do you really need the API_KEY there?

If we remove API_KEY, this removes the need to have backend communication between Dapp and TPaaS. Also, TPaaS can provide more analytics to Dapp.

Also I think some Dapps may want to support something like sponsor transaction costs if the user doesn't already have enough flow to cover the transaction cost (or below some balance threshold).

• In the light of those, wouldn't be beneficial for TPaaS to host an access API? Work as like wallets, replace payer signature if come conditions met ( rate limits, blacklists, transaction verification, flow balance, etc), so by using their access node, you may have access to analytics and transaction payment just by pointing your access API URL to theirs.

• Or at least if the wallet is sponsoring the transaction fee why should Dapp pay to TPaaS? It can be another service call before sending the transaction, so TPaaS can replace the signature only if necessary. (I think in that case just a new FCL config for TPaaS endpoint should be enough)

[laynelafrance]

Branch with spelling improvements and business areas needing clarification

[sifmoon]

@JeffreyDoyle submitted a few changes. I think you can leave out any additional 'definition of done' things. This should be outlined in the overall FLiP process. Anything specific to this exact project, you already outlined in the FLiP itself.

[sifmoon]

@JeffreyDoyle left a new review!

[laynelafrance]

Looks great overall @JeffreyDoyle just some spelling fixes

[janezpodhostnik]

Slightly confusing... how about:

Suggested change

	Applications that wish to guarantee their users can submit transactions
	without having to pay transaction fees for them will then have to pay those fees themselves.
	Applications that wish to guarantee their users can submit transactions
	without having to pay transaction fees will have to pay those fees in the users' stead.

[pgebheim]

@JeffreyDoyle Is there any movement on this?