Wilson Cusack
@wilsoncusack
gm Farcaster Pro Max Ultra users We've been doing a lot of work on how to make the Sub Account + Spend Permission pitch to users clearly and succinctly when they're connecting to apps. What do you think of this?
6 replies
12 recasts
77 reactions
Varun Srinivasan
@v
I would just say “allow this app to spend up to $10 or .0001 ETGa day”
1 reply
0 recast
13 reactions
Wilson Cusack
@wilsoncusack
This is what we say for pure spend limit request. For sub account I think this is missing the “why would I want this/what does this get me?”
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Henri Stern Ꙫ
@henri
I’d even skip the transaction confirmation bit: “what’s a transaction confirmation?” Just “allow x to use up to $10 of my balance daily (you can always revoke this later”
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Wilson Cusack
@wilsoncusack
Thank you! But if you’re a user connecting to an app, why would you want to do that? Does the user need some “this is going to give you a faster and smoother UX” motivation?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Henri Stern Ꙫ
@henri
My take is it’s broadly going to be contextual, ie up to the app to clarify that context. The wallet trying to do that will be too clunky.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Wilson Cusack
@wilsoncusack
ah ok, good feedback. We had been trying to minimize app work. But it sounds like you're suggesting rely on them to prime the user
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Henri Stern Ꙫ
@henri
Ya. It’s their product — that’s a very @privy centric viewpoint anyhow.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Wilson Cusack
@wilsoncusack
It makes a lot of sense and is how we've approached Spend Permissions. With Sub Accounts, we're trying to minimize app work and get it to just a constructor change, so questioning how much we have to say. Appreciate the feedback!
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
