Community Update — August 17, 2018
A big shout out (and thank you!) to our beta testers 🔨
After extensive testing with our beta testers this week, we’ve come to identify some further high quality UX improvements to be made.
We are extremely confident that with the initial round of iteration (and by taking the time to include this community feedback) we’re far down the path of having the best available transaction sending user experience for both new and experienced Ethereum users.
Achieving this, while still maintaining the goals of full decentralization and cryptographic security, is one of our highest priorities with our products.
Bottom line: We’re excited to get this just right — so we’re going to take a few more days to iterate to further improve the user experience.
#1 — Feedback: Info in modals for authorization not 100% clear.
One of the core workflows, sending ERC20 tokens and paying in CAT, requires three separate transactions which all need to be authorized by the user.
While having three separate transactions isn’t necessarily an issue, there was a bit of a disconnect with our testing audience — as the information that appears on our modals sometimes didn’t reflect properly to the information being displayed elsewhere (ex. MetaMask, Ledger).
Proposed Fix: We’re going to re-work the information that is displayed in the authorization and payment modals to more accurately match external services.
#2 — MetaMask Bug, To Address Inconsistencies
Exacerbating the problem seen in #1 is a small bug in the new Metamask UI, where the
to address isn’t displaying properly in the MetaMask notification window, which lead some of our beta testers to ask if the product was compromised (“why is it sending to a different address?”).
On first glance, it appears that it’s attempting to send to a completely different address — but in reality it’s sending to the correct address, which can be verified by analyzing the transaction after the fact. Luckily, this is only happening in our token authorization transactions.
Proposed Fix: We have a few ideas on how we can fix this on our end — but we’ve logged a bug in MetaMask’s GitHub for the time being.
We’re trying to ensure that our contracts are an excellent experience for all integration types — Metamask, hardware wallets, even offline wallets and third-party authentication services. We anticipate these to be somewhat easy fixes, but we’re willing to put a bit more time up front to get things just right.
We are also continuing to have our dedicated beta testing team — as well as some inexperienced crypto users and other testers — play with the software and log their thoughts and successes.
We’ll have a more accurate timeline for public beta launch next week. 👍
A quick update on Tabby Rewards: We have gained two new go-to-market partners, who will also serve as our first customers for the product.
Our early negotiations are going exceptionally well, and it’s become clear that there is a considerable gap in the market for solutions that allow you to distribute tokens quickly and easily with minimal time investment.
Tabby Rewards allows teams to distribute tokens quickly and easily via unique, redeemable codes with a slick, easy to use interface — without requiring a list of addresses beforehand.
A few quick notes about what went on behind the scenes this week.
+ bug fix: ensure token list persists correctly
+ bug fix: fix alignment of blockies
+ bug fix: dont show fee error for empty amount input
+ improvement: show 'Add New' token button on no search results
+ improvement: alternate colors inside token list
+ continuing reviewing and polishing new contract
+ continuing integration of rewards with new contract