Cosmos-sdk: Incentivize Wallet Providers

[adrianbrink]

An extra field in the transaction can allow wallets to specify a tag. That tag represents an account to which the wallet provider has the key.
There is a global fee percentage parameter that is decided by governance.
If a transaction includes the tag the wallet provider gets 1% of the transaction and the validators altruistically only receive 99%. Transactions stay constant in size and users only have to sign one transaction.

This single feature means that the Cosmos hub is the first blockchain that offers UI/UX providers a monetisation strategy. It will ensure that we have the best UI experience in the entire blockchain space. The best part is that it doesn't change the cost to the user sending the transaction.

We need to write this issue up as a governance proposal since it will be one of the first proposals that we will submit.

@rigelrozanski Could you comment on the difficulty of implementing this?

@jaekwon fyi

[zmanian]

Thanks for starting a write up here. i think tx tagging will be our second interchain standard.

Wallet providers should be able to register a short tag and then account.

Governance should be able to vote a portion of the fee pool to be shared with tags.

It might helpful to track in consensus what percentage of fess came from a given tag.

[rigelrozanski]

implementation difficulty level: ultra easy

Let's rename this something other than a "tag" because that name conflicts with the tagging system we already have built into here and this is totally unique concept. how about a UI stamp

[ricburton]

I think we will look back on this standard as one of the most important shifts in the relationship between products and protocols.

Great open source infrastructure needs a great interface. GitHub proves this.

[rigelrozanski]

Also another cool thought on this - it can incentive building different validator interfaces

[ricburton]

That would be really fun. Would that be a new take on Voyager?

Richard

On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 15:06:09, Rigel < [email protected] > wrote:

Also another cool thought on this - it can incentive building different
validator interfaces

—
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub (
https://github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/issues/1136#issuecomment-395179570 ) ,
or mute the thread (
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAavkFvbWOGgXYHIFh6vr2ZUPPOENK9Mks5t6CghgaJpZM4UZ3AT
).

[rigelrozanski]

There is interface for validators currently, they are expected to be technically proficient enough to use CLI tooling - Voyager is intended to be used only by delegators

[ricburton]

Got it. That's helpful to know.

Richard

On Thu, Jun 07, 2018 at 05:00:02, Rigel < [email protected] > wrote:

There is interface for validators currently, they are expected to be
technically proficient enough to use CLI tooling - Voyager is intended to
be used only by delegators

—
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub (
https://github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/issues/1136#issuecomment-395346840 ) ,
or mute the thread (
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAavkHr2P0noBHXskVdFt0R-nWg_qbJ7ks5t6OuSgaJpZM4UZ3AT
).

[ajcronk]

@rigelrozanski for different validator interfaces, could you also imagine a web interface or some non-CLI UI? If web, would that presume a MetaMask equivalent? Suppose you could also go MyCrypto/MyEtherWallet route.

[fedekunze]

we should consider creating a gov proposal on mainnet for this

[alexanderbez]

Indeed a proposal should be made for this.

Also note,

The best part is that it doesn't change the cost to the user sending the transaction.

Assuming a new tx field is added, users will have to pay (gas costs for tx size), albeit negligible.

[fedekunze]

Assuming a new tx field is added, users will have to pay (gas costs for tx size), albeit negligible.

I guess that field could be optional as only wallets will be incentivized to add it. Would this require to have some sort of registry for clients (wallets, exchanges, etc) in order to transfer them this client fee ? cc: @zmanian @sunnya97

[alexanderbez]

I don't think so @fedekunze. These funds can directly be sent at the tx's endblocker (if a source exists). The distribution allocation logic will have to be adjusted accordingly.

[jackzampolin]

This seems to be popular.

[alexanderbez]

I like this proposal a lot. I would love to see it submitted through a governance proposal. I'd be happy to do this. Thoughts @adrianbrink?

[fedekunze]

closing. Requires a governance proposal. Please reopen this on the forum if necessary