Coin Wallet - self-custodial open-source wallet. Discussion and News

[joker_josue]

• Okay, we’ve taken the hate, everything’s fine, let’s move forward. Is there a general verdict on the fees? If we explain it to the user and clearly show the two different fees, will that be enough?

I think that would make things fairer.

Because the way things are now, it gives the impression that the fee being paid is entirely for the network/mining, when we know that's not the only reason.

Transaction fees are one thing; usage/service/support fees are another.

If you make it clear what a person is actually paying for when making a transaction, it makes things fairer.

[Forsyth Jones]

Hey everyone, thanks for digging a bit into the code. And what else is open source for?

• I had some issues with satscraper because they announced that we position you as a FREE wallet, but we have zero mentions of "free to use" anywhere. We always avoid such wording: both in the app store and in our advertising. We used those phrases until around 2017-2018, but never after that. We're not going to put up a flashing banner saying "We are not free."
• Also, I don't really understand the questions at the beginning. You ask "when do you charge a commission?" when it's clearly written "Transaction Fees".
• There are many different monetization models even for non-custodial wallets. Everyone is experimenting. This was popular, and it's basically the only way for independent developers to survive. Of course, Trust Wallet has now swallowed everyone and started giving everything away for free. Sorry about that.
• Okay, we’ve taken the hate, everything’s fine, let’s move forward. Is there a general verdict on the fees? If we explain it to the user and clearly show the two different fees, will that be enough?
• By the way, we discussed the idea of integrating with hardware wallets again. Honestly, we couldn’t find a single good reason to do it. If you can give us a cheap developer who’s willing to do this - we’ll think about it . Otherwise, it’s way too much work. It would be one thing if it was just one hardware brand, but there are tons of them.

Leaving enough info so that the user is informed and consents to the fact that part of the fees is allocated to wallet development, in addition to the amounts, something like the address, an informative tag about development, etc. This is a very delicate matter, I think you've come up with the worst idea of all for raising funds or maintaining this project. Why not follow the example that 99% of wallets already follow, such as: seeking sponsorships, adding swap features, voluntary donations, etc?

Trust wallet is a terrible example you could use, as there are much better options like bluewallet...

When adding hardware wallet support, I wonder how you will collect your share of the direct transaction commissions, since it is the hardware wallet itself that generates signatures... Unless you set up the transactions in the background in a way that always clearly defines your fundraising address...

[Zwei]

• I had some issues with satscraper because they announced that we position you as a FREE wallet, but we have zero mentions of "free to use" anywhere. We always avoid such wording: both in the app store and in our advertising. We used those phrases until around 2017-2018, but never after that. We're not going to put up a flashing banner saying "We are not free."

but you also had zero mentions that the wallet is not free, or that there is a service fee.
usually self-custodial open-source wallets are free, so the majority of people coming across your wallet will think it's free, until they get surprised by your hidden service fees.

• We used those phrases until around 2017-2018, but never after that. We're not going to put up a flashing banner saying "We are not free."

obviously because no one will use your wallet when there are better alternatives that are 100% free.

• Also, I don't really understand the questions at the beginning. You ask "when do you charge a commission?" when it's clearly written "Transaction Fees".

don't act dumb please, you know we know you are not. transaction fees for most people mean network fees paid to miners, but you are trying to sneak your service fees under that to deceive people who don't know better, otherwise you would have had an extra column called wallet service fees on the fees page.

• Okay, we’ve taken the hate, everything’s fine, let’s move forward. Is there a general verdict on the fees? If we explain it to the user and clearly show the two different fees, will that be enough?

as long as you make the service fees more transparent on the fees page and on the send and confirm wallet interface, that would be enough for me.

[coinwalletglobal]

When adding hardware wallet support, I wonder how you will collect your share of the direct transaction commissions, since it is the hardware wallet itself that generates signatures... Unless you set up the transactions in the background in a way that always clearly defines your fundraising address...

I literally just wrote above that we are not planning to do this. The issue isn’t the fees - we simply don’t see the point in this long and expensive development.

but you also had zero mentions that the wallet is not free, or that there is a service fee.

Please read it again. There was a direct quote:"So declaring this wallet to be 'free' is misleading." To which I replied that this is not true. You are accusing me of something we never said or wrote. The fees page appeared on the third message. From the outside, it also looks like you’re being insincere - everyone has already read about the fees, but you (not you personally) continue the discussion as if you’re seeing it for the first time But anyway, let's move on

as long as you make the service fees more transparent on the fees page and on the send and confirm wallet interface, that would be enough for me.

thanks. Based on several opinions, this is a compromise. We’ll discuss it with the team