Skip to content

Conversation

@paulafgtorres
Copy link

@paulafgtorres paulafgtorres commented Jan 29, 2026

Updating Partner Fee as requested, please let me know if there is anything else that needs to be changed :)

Description

Changes

  • Changed old CIP to new CIP-75, fee from 50% to 25%
  • Added "or API integration"

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • Documentation
    • Partner Fee now applies to all trades executed via both Widget and API integrations (previously Widget only)
    • Reduced default service fee from 50% to 25% of total eligible Partner Fees
    • Updated governance reference from CIP-61 to CIP-75
    • Clarified payment workflow, eligibility requirements, and partner data processing details

✏️ Tip: You can customize this high-level summary in your review settings.

Updating Partner Fee as requested, please let me know if there is anything else that needs to be changed :)
@paulafgtorres paulafgtorres requested a review from a team as a code owner January 29, 2026 11:02
@vercel
Copy link

vercel bot commented Jan 29, 2026

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.

Project Deployment Review Updated (UTC)
docs Ready Ready Preview Jan 29, 2026 11:02am

Request Review

@github-actions
Copy link


Thank you for your submission, we really appreciate it. Like many open-source projects, we ask that you sign our Contributor License Agreement before we can accept your contribution. You can sign the CLA by just posting a Pull Request Comment same as the below format.


I have read the CLA Document and I hereby sign the CLA


You can retrigger this bot by commenting recheck in this Pull Request. Posted by the CLA Assistant Lite bot.

@coderabbitai
Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Jan 29, 2026

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

The pull request updates partner fee documentation to reference CIP-75 instead of CIP-61, reduces the default service fee from 50% to 25%, and expands Partner Fee applicability to include both Widget and API integrations in addition to clarifying related payment processes.

Changes

Cohort / File(s) Summary
Partner Fee Documentation
docs/governance/fees/partner-fee.md
Updated CIP reference (CIP-61 → CIP-75), reduced default service fee (50% → 25%), expanded applicability from Widget-only to Widget and API integrations, and clarified payment workflow and eligibility language.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~3 minutes

Poem

🐰 Hop, hop, our fees take a spin,
API and Widget share the win,
From fifty to twenty-five we descend,
New CIP reference, a partner's best friend!
Documentation updated with grace,
More integrations, a wider embrace! ✨

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 2 | ❌ 1
❌ Failed checks (1 inconclusive)
Check name Status Explanation Resolution
Title check ❓ Inconclusive The title is overly vague and generic; it describes what file was updated but fails to convey the specific, meaningful changes (CIP reference update, fee reduction, API integration expansion). Consider using a more descriptive title that captures the main changes, such as 'Update partner fee structure: CIP-75, reduce service fee to 25%, add API integration'.
✅ Passed checks (2 passed)
Check name Status Explanation
Description check ✅ Passed The description includes the required Description and Changes sections with concrete details about the modifications, though it could be more formal and structured.
Docstring Coverage ✅ Passed No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.

✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings.


Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.

Copy link
Contributor

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Actionable comments posted: 1

🤖 Fix all issues with AI agents
In `@docs/governance/fees/partner-fee.md`:
- Around line 72-74: Update the wording so all three bullets consistently state
that both Widget and API integrations are included: change the second bullet's
"Widget integration" to "Widget or API integration" and the third bullet's
"Widget" to "Widget or API integration" (references: "Partner Fee parameters",
"appData", and the Partner Fee 'Recipient' parameter) so the data script and
weekly transfer clearly apply to trades via either integration.
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
docs/governance/fees/partner-fee.md (1)

20-20: Clarify if the 100 BPS limit applies to API integrations.

Since the Partner Fee scope has been expanded to include API integrations (lines 22, 72), consider clarifying whether the 100 BPS limit also applies to API integrations or if it remains Widget-specific.

📝 Suggested update if the limit applies to both Widget and API
-You may charge users a fee of no more than 100 bps of order volume through your Widget. 
+You may charge users a fee of no more than 100 bps of order volume through your Widget or API integration.

Comment on lines +72 to 74
1. Upon completing the implementation of the Partner Fee parameters, you will be eligible to receive the Partner Fee on trades executed by your users through the Widget or API integration.
2. A data script will be run on a weekly basis on your project's eligible Partner Fee amount calculated based on the sum of all transactions traded through your project's Widget integration associated with Partner Fee defined in the [`appData`](/cow-protocol/reference/core/intents/app-data) your AppKey.
3. The Net Partner Fee (refer to the [Partner Fee Calculation](#partner-fee-calculation) section for details on calculations) will be transferred to your designated Ethereum wallet address defined under the Partner Fee "Recipient" parameter of the Widget on a weekly basis.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

⚠️ Potential issue | 🟡 Minor

Inconsistent scope in the payment process description.

Line 72 correctly mentions "Widget or API integration," but lines 73-74 reference only "Widget integration." This inconsistency may confuse users about whether API integration trades are included in the data script and payment calculations.

📝 Proposed fix to ensure consistency
 1. Upon completing the implementation of the Partner Fee parameters, you will be eligible to receive the Partner Fee on trades executed by your users through the Widget or API integration.
-2. A data script will be run on a weekly basis on your project's eligible Partner Fee amount calculated based on the sum of all transactions traded through your project's Widget integration associated with Partner Fee defined in the [`appData`](/cow-protocol/reference/core/intents/app-data) your AppKey.
-3. The Net Partner Fee (refer to the [Partner Fee Calculation](`#partner-fee-calculation`) section for details on calculations) will be transferred to your designated Ethereum wallet address defined under the Partner Fee "Recipient" parameter of the Widget on a weekly basis.
+2. A data script will be run on a weekly basis on your project's eligible Partner Fee amount calculated based on the sum of all transactions traded through your project's Widget or API integration associated with Partner Fee defined in the [`appData`](/cow-protocol/reference/core/intents/app-data) and your AppKey.
+3. The Net Partner Fee (refer to the [Partner Fee Calculation](`#partner-fee-calculation`) section for details on calculations) will be transferred to your designated Ethereum wallet address defined under the Partner Fee "Recipient" parameter on a weekly basis.
📝 Committable suggestion

‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.

Suggested change
1. Upon completing the implementation of the Partner Fee parameters, you will be eligible to receive the Partner Fee on trades executed by your users through the Widget or API integration.
2. A data script will be run on a weekly basis on your project's eligible Partner Fee amount calculated based on the sum of all transactions traded through your project's Widget integration associated with Partner Fee defined in the [`appData`](/cow-protocol/reference/core/intents/app-data) your AppKey.
3. The Net Partner Fee (refer to the [Partner Fee Calculation](#partner-fee-calculation) section for details on calculations) will be transferred to your designated Ethereum wallet address defined under the Partner Fee "Recipient" parameter of the Widget on a weekly basis.
1. Upon completing the implementation of the Partner Fee parameters, you will be eligible to receive the Partner Fee on trades executed by your users through the Widget or API integration.
2. A data script will be run on a weekly basis on your project's eligible Partner Fee amount calculated based on the sum of all transactions traded through your project's Widget or API integration associated with Partner Fee defined in the [`appData`](/cow-protocol/reference/core/intents/app-data) and your AppKey.
3. The Net Partner Fee (refer to the [Partner Fee Calculation](`#partner-fee-calculation`) section for details on calculations) will be transferred to your designated Ethereum wallet address defined under the Partner Fee "Recipient" parameter on a weekly basis.
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
In `@docs/governance/fees/partner-fee.md` around lines 72 - 74, Update the wording
so all three bullets consistently state that both Widget and API integrations
are included: change the second bullet's "Widget integration" to "Widget or API
integration" and the third bullet's "Widget" to "Widget or API integration"
(references: "Partner Fee parameters", "appData", and the Partner Fee
'Recipient' parameter) so the data script and weekly transfer clearly apply to
trades via either integration.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants