Expand and clarify fee structure documentation#337
Conversation
- Rename page title to "Fee Structure" with updated description - Restructure Execution Fees bullets to clarify gasless vs non-gasless origin gas - Add Hyperliquid $1 activation fee note to Swap Fees - Replace volume-tiered effective fee table with standard fees table + revenue share model - Add eligibility criteria for revenue share program - Add new Same-Chain Wrap/Unwrap fee category - Expand stablecoin list (USDC.e, USDT0, USD1, PYUSD, USDG, mUSD, USDm, USDH, pUSD, PlumeUSD) - Add PLUME to Major token swaps - Add concrete examples to each fee category https://claude.ai/code/session_01JQ8XT6661N4WzF4Q7vt8WF
|
Preview deployment for your docs. Learn more about Mintlify Previews.
💡 Tip: Enable Workflows to automatically generate PRs for you. |
|
Claude finished @vezzabel's task in 1m 29s —— View job Code Review: PR #337 — Expand and clarify fee structure documentation
Overall this is a strong, well-organized rewrite. The Execution Fees breakdown (flat fee / destination gas / origin-gas-for-gasless) is much clearer, the category definitions with concrete examples are a real improvement, and the new revenue-share framing is explicit about qualification and that it can't be used to discount end users. Math verification (✅ passes): The restructure splits the old per-tier absolute-fee table into a single standard fee + a revenue-share percentage. I checked that the two reconcile with the previous numbers:
The Suggestions1. 2. Inconsistent chain naming: "BNB Chain" vs "Binance Smart Chain" (terminology) 3. "Note:" written as plain prose instead of a callout (style, §2.5) 4. Frontmatter description plural (nit) Minor / non-blocking
None of these are blocking. The content is accurate and the math is sound — items 1 and 2 are the most worth addressing before merge. |
|
Claude finished @vezzabel's task in 1m 39s —— View job Code Review: PR #337 — Expand and clarify fee structure documentation
Re-reviewing after the latest push. The most recent commit ( This is a solid rewrite overall. The Execution Fees breakdown (flat fee / always-included destination gas / origin gas for gasless only) is much clearer, the explicit "regular users pay origin gas directly to the network" note removes a common misconception, and the category definitions with concrete examples are a genuine improvement. Math verification (✅ passes): The standard fee × (1 − revenue-share %) reconciles exactly to the old per-tier absolute fees:
Internally consistent. Still open from the prior review1. Inconsistent chain naming: "BNB Chain" vs "Binance Smart Chain" (terminology, §5) 2. 3. Frontmatter description plural (nit, §2.1) New observation4. "major stablecoin" is undefined (clarity) Minor / non-blocking
None of these are blocking — the content is accurate and the math is sound. Item 1 (chain naming) and item 4 (undefined "major stablecoin") are the most worth addressing before merge. |
|
Claude finished @vezzabel's task in 1m 15s —— View job Code Review: PR #337 — Expand and clarify fee structure documentation
Re-reviewing after the latest commits. This is a solid, well-structured rewrite — the Execution Fees breakdown, the category definitions with concrete examples, and the explicit revenue-share framing all read clearly. Previously-flagged items now resolved ✅
Math reconciliation (✅ still holds) — the standard-fee × (1 − revenue-share) products reconcile with the old absolute-fee table:
The Remaining suggestions (all non-blocking)1. 2. 3. Frontmatter description plural (nit) 4. Trailing whitespace (nit, outside diff) Verdict: Content is accurate, math is sound, and the two highest-priority items from the prior review are fixed. Remaining items are clarity/style nits — item 1 (undefined "major stablecoin") is the most worth addressing before merge. |
|
Claude finished @vezzabel's task in 1m 13s —— View job Code Review: PR #337 — Expand and clarify fee structure documentation
Re-reviewing after the latest pushes. Two items from prior reviews are now resolved:
This is a strong rewrite. The Execution Fees breakdown (flat fee / always-included destination gas / origin gas for gasless only) and the explicit "regular users pay origin gas directly to the network" note remove a common misconception, and the category definitions with concrete examples are a genuine improvement. Math verification (✅ passes): standard fee × (1 − revenue-share %) reconciles exactly to the prior per-tier absolute fees:
Internally consistent. Still open1. 2. 3. Minor / non-blocking (all pre-existing, outside the diff)
None of these are blocking — the content is accurate and the math is sound. Item 1 (undefined "major stablecoin") is the only remaining in-scope clarity item worth addressing before merge. |
|
Claude finished @vezzabel's task in 58s —— View job Code Review: PR #337 — Expand and clarify fee structure documentation
Re-reviewing after the latest pushes. This is a strong, well-organized rewrite. The Execution Fees breakdown (flat fee / always-included destination gas / origin gas for gasless only) plus the explicit "regular users pay origin gas directly to the network" note removes a common misconception, and the category definitions with concrete examples are a genuine improvement. Previously-flagged items now resolved ✅
Math verification (✅ passes): standard fee × (1 − revenue-share %) reconciles exactly to the prior per-tier absolute fees:
Internally consistent. Still open (all non-blocking)1. 2. 3. Minor / non-blocking (pre-existing, outside the diff)
Verdict: Content is accurate, math is sound, and the two highest-priority items from earlier reviews (table headers, chain naming) are fixed. Remaining items are clarity/style nits — item 1 (undefined "major stablecoin") is the most worth addressing before merge. |
|
Claude finished @vezzabel's task in 1m 4s —— View job Code Review: PR #337 — Expand and clarify fee structure documentation
Re-reviewing after the latest push. This is a strong, well-structured rewrite. The Execution Fees breakdown (flat fee / always-included destination gas / origin gas for gasless only) plus the explicit "regular users pay origin gas directly to the network" note clears up a common misconception, and the category definitions with concrete examples are a genuine improvement. Resolved since earlier reviews ✅
Math verification (✅ passes): standard fee × (1 − revenue-share %) reconciles exactly to the prior per-tier absolute fees:
Internally consistent. Still open1. 2. Minor / non-blocking (pre-existing, outside the diff)
Verdict: Content is accurate and the math is sound. The two highest-priority items from prior reviews are fixed. Item 1 (undefined "major stablecoin") is the only remaining in-scope clarity item worth addressing before merge — everything else is style/nit. |
|
Claude finished @vezzabel's task in 1m 0s —— View job Code Review: PR #337 — Expand and clarify fee structure documentation
Re-reviewing after the latest commits (most recently Previously-flagged items now resolved ✅
Math verification (✅ passes): standard fee × (1 − revenue-share %) reconciles exactly to the prior per-tier absolute fees:
Internally consistent. Still open (all non-blocking)1. 2. 3. 4. Minor / non-blocking (pre-existing, outside the diff)
Verdict: Content is accurate, the math is sound, and all of the highest-priority items from earlier reviews (table headers, chain naming, frontmatter) are fixed. Remaining items are clarity/style nits — item 1 (undefined "major stablecoin") is the most worth addressing before merge. |
|
Claude finished @vezzabel's task in 53s —— View job Code Review: PR #337 — Expand and clarify fee structure documentation
Re-reviewing after the latest push. This is a strong, well-organized rewrite. The Execution Fees breakdown (flat fee / always-included destination gas / origin gas for gasless only) plus the explicit "regular users pay origin gas directly to the network" note (line 15) removes a common misconception, and the new transaction-type definitions with concrete examples are a genuine improvement. Resolved since earlier reviews ✅
Math verification (✅ passes): standard fee × (1 − revenue-share %) reconciles exactly to the prior per-tier absolute fees:
Internally consistent. Still open (all non-blocking)1. 2. 3. Minor / non-blocking (pre-existing, outside the diff)
Verdict: Content is accurate, the math is sound, and all the highest-priority items from earlier reviews are fixed. The remaining items are clarity/style nits — item 1 (undefined "major stablecoin") and item 2 (Token Bridging/Token Bridge mismatch) are the two most worth addressing before merge. |
|
Claude finished @vezzabel's task in 1m 2s —— View job Code Review: PR #337 — Expand and clarify fee structure documentation
Re-reviewing after the latest commit ( Previously-flagged item now resolved ✅
Still resolved from earlier reviews ✅
Math verification (✅ passes): standard fee × (1 − revenue-share %) reconciles exactly to the prior per-tier absolute fees:
Internally consistent. Remaining suggestions (all non-blocking)1. Capitalization of the new defined term (clarity nit) 2. 3. Minor / non-blocking (pre-existing, outside the diff)
Verdict: Content is accurate, the math is sound, and every highest-priority item from the earlier review rounds (table headers, chain naming, frontmatter, and the previously-undefined "major stablecoin") is now resolved. The remaining items are pure clarity/style nits — none block merge. |
|
Claude finished @vezzabel's task in 1m 12s —— View job Code Review: PR #337 — Expand and clarify fee structure documentation
Re-reviewing the current head. This is a strong, well-organized rewrite. The Execution Fees breakdown (flat fee / always-included destination gas / origin gas for gasless only) plus the explicit "regular users pay origin gas directly to the network" note (line 15) removes a common misconception, and the transaction-type definitions with concrete examples are a genuine improvement. Resolved across the review rounds ✅
Math verification (✅ passes): standard fee × (1 − revenue-share %) reconciles exactly to the prior per-tier absolute fees:
Internally consistent. Remaining suggestions (all non-blocking)1. Defined term 2. 3. Minor / non-blocking (pre-existing, outside the diff)
Verdict: Content is accurate, the math is sound, and every higher-priority item from the earlier rounds (table headers, chain naming, frontmatter, undefined "major stablecoin") is resolved. The remaining items are pure clarity/style nits — none block merge. |
|
Claude finished @vezzabel's task in 54s —— View job Code Review: PR #337 — Expand and clarify fee structure documentation
Re-reviewing the current head. This remains a strong, well-organized rewrite. The Execution Fees breakdown (flat fee / always-included destination gas / origin gas for gasless only) plus the explicit "regular users pay origin gas directly to the network" note (line 15) removes a common misconception, and the transaction-type definitions with concrete examples read clearly. Resolved across the review rounds ✅
Math verification (✅ passes): standard fee × (1 − revenue-share %) reconciles exactly to the prior per-tier absolute fees:
Internally consistent. Still open1. 2. Definition labels vs. table headers — terminology mismatch (clarity) 3. 4. Line 155 trailing whitespace (nit) Minor / non-blocking
Verdict: Content is accurate, the math is sound, and every higher-priority item from earlier rounds (table headers, chain naming, frontmatter, undefined "major stablecoin", App Fees wording) is resolved. The remaining items are clarity/terminology nits — item 1 ( |
|
Claude finished @vezzabel's task in 1m 12s —— View job Code Review: PR #337 — Expand and clarify fee structure documentation
This is a strong, well-organized rewrite. The Execution Fees breakdown (flat fee / always-included destination gas / origin gas for gasless only) plus the explicit "regular users pay origin gas directly to the network" note (line 15) removes a common misconception, and the transaction-type definitions with concrete examples read clearly. Math verification (✅ passes): standard fee × (1 − revenue-share %) reconciles exactly to the prior per-tier absolute fees:
Internally consistent. One semantic shift worth flagging (not a bug): the old table reduced the fee charged to the end user at higher volume tiers, whereas the new model holds the end-user fee at the Standard rate and routes the difference to the integrator as a revenue share that "cannot be used to discount the Relay product to end users" (line 58). That reads as intentional — just calling it out so it isn't an accidental inversion of prior behavior. Still open1. 2. Definition labels vs. table headers — terminology mismatch (clarity, non-blocking) 3. 4. Line 155 trailing whitespace (nit) Minor / non-blocking
Verdict: Content is accurate, the math is sound, and every higher-priority item from earlier rounds (table headers, chain naming, frontmatter, undefined "major stablecoin", App Fees wording) is resolved. The remaining items are clarity/terminology nits — item 1 ( |
|
Claude finished @vezzabel's task in 1m 16s —— View job Code Review: PR #337 — Expand and clarify fee structure documentation
Re-reviewing the current head. This is a strong, well-organized rewrite. The Execution Fees breakdown (flat fee / always-included destination gas / origin gas for gasless only) plus the explicit "regular users pay origin gas directly to the network" note (line 15) removes a common misconception, and the transaction-type definitions with concrete examples read clearly. Resolved across the review rounds ✅
Math verification (✅ passes): standard fee × (1 − revenue-share %) reconciles exactly to the prior per-tier absolute fees:
Internally consistent. One semantic shift worth flagging (not a bug): the old table reduced the fee charged to the end user at higher volume tiers, whereas the new model holds the end-user fee at the Standard rate and routes the difference to the integrator as a revenue share that "cannot be used to discount the Relay product to end users" (line 58). That reads as intentional — just calling it out so it isn't an accidental inversion of prior behavior. Still open (all non-blocking)1. Definition labels vs. table headers — terminology mismatch (clarity) 2. 3. Line 155 trailing whitespace (nit) Minor / non-blocking
Verdict: Content is accurate, the math is sound, and every higher-priority item from earlier rounds — table headers, chain naming, frontmatter, undefined "major stablecoin", App Fees wording, and |
|
Claude finished @vezzabel's task in 1m 13s —— View job Code Review: PR #337 — Expand and clarify fee structure documentation
Re-reviewing the current head. This is a strong, well-organized rewrite. The Execution Fees breakdown (flat fee / always-included destination gas / origin gas for gasless only) plus the explicit "regular users pay origin gas directly to the network" note (line 15) removes a common misconception, and the transaction-type definitions with concrete examples read clearly. Resolved across the review rounds ✅
Math verification (✅ passes): standard fee × (1 − revenue-share %) reconciles exactly to the prior per-tier absolute fees:
Internally consistent. One semantic shift worth flagging (not a bug): the old table reduced the fee charged to the end user at higher volume tiers, whereas the new model holds the end-user fee at the Standard rate and routes the difference to the integrator as a revenue share that "cannot be used to discount the Relay product to end users" (line 58). That reads as intentional — just calling it out so it isn't an accidental inversion of prior behavior. Still open (all non-blocking)1. Definition labels vs. table headers — terminology mismatch (clarity) 2. 3. Line 155 trailing whitespace (nit) Minor / non-blocking
Verdict: Content is accurate, the math is sound, and every higher-priority item from earlier rounds — table headers, chain naming, frontmatter, undefined "major stablecoin", App Fees wording, and |
|
Claude finished @vezzabel's task in 1m 24s —— View job Code Review: PR #337 — Expand and clarify fee structure documentation
Re-reviewing the current head. This is a strong, well-organized rewrite. The Execution Fees breakdown (flat fee / always-included destination gas / origin gas for gasless only) plus the explicit "regular users pay origin gas directly to the network" note (line 15) removes a common misconception, and the transaction-type definitions with concrete examples read clearly. Resolved across the review rounds ✅
Math verification (✅ passes): standard fee × (1 − revenue-share %) reconciles exactly to the prior per-tier absolute fees:
Internally consistent. One semantic shift worth flagging (not a bug): the old table reduced the fee charged to the end user at higher volume tiers, whereas the new model holds the end-user fee at the Standard rate and routes the difference to the integrator as a revenue share that "cannot be used to discount the Relay product to end users" (line 58). That reads as intentional — just calling it out so it isn't an accidental inversion of prior behavior. Still open (all non-blocking)1. Definition labels vs. table headers — terminology mismatch (clarity) 2. 3. Minor / non-blocking (outside the diff)
Verdict: Content is accurate, the math is sound, and every higher-priority item from earlier rounds — table headers, chain naming, frontmatter, undefined "major stablecoin", App Fees wording, |
|
Claude finished @vezzabel's task in 1m 7s —— View job Code Review: PR #337 — Expand and clarify fee structure documentation
Re-reviewing the current head. This is a strong, well-organized rewrite. The Execution Fees breakdown (flat fee / always-included destination gas / origin gas for gasless only) plus the explicit "regular users pay origin gas directly to the network" note (line 15) removes a common misconception, and the transaction-type definitions with concrete examples read clearly. Resolved across the review rounds ✅
Math verification (✅ passes): standard fee × (1 − revenue-share %) reconciles exactly to the prior per-tier absolute fees:
Internally consistent. One semantic shift worth flagging (not a bug): the old table reduced the fee charged to the end user at higher volume tiers, whereas the new model holds the end-user fee at the Standard rate and routes the difference to the integrator as a revenue share that "cannot be used to discount the Relay product to end users" (line 58). That reads as intentional — just calling it out so it isn't an accidental inversion of prior behavior. Still open (all non-blocking)1. Residual casing mismatch: definition labels vs. table headers (clarity nit) 2. 3. Minor / non-blocking (outside the diff)
Verdict: Content is accurate, the math is sound, and every higher-priority item from earlier rounds — table headers, chain naming, frontmatter, undefined "major stablecoin", App Fees wording, |
|
Claude encountered an error after 4m 12s —— View job I'll analyze this and get back to you. |
|
Hi @pedromcunha I checked this PR against the internal GDoc draft and it looks good. I didn't make these changes that were flagged by code review:
|
|
Claude finished @vezzabel's task in 1m 22s —— View job Code Review: PR #337 — Expand and clarify fee structure documentation
Re-reviewing the current head. This is a strong, well-organized rewrite, and at this point nearly every item raised across the review rounds is resolved. The Execution Fees breakdown (flat fee / always-included destination gas / origin gas for gasless only) plus the explicit "regular users pay origin gas directly to the network" note (line 15) removes a common misconception, and the transaction-type definitions with concrete examples read clearly. Resolved ✅
Math verification (✅ passes): standard fee × (1 − revenue-share %) reconciles exactly to the prior per-tier absolute fees:
Internally consistent. One semantic shift worth noting (not a bug): the old table reduced the fee charged to the end user at higher volume tiers, whereas the new model holds the end-user fee at the Standard rate and routes the difference to the integrator as a revenue share that "cannot be used to discount the Relay product to end users" (line 58). @vezzabel's note that this matches the internal GDoc draft confirms it's intentional. 👍 Author-deferred items (acknowledged, not re-flagging)@vezzabel has reviewed against the internal draft and deferred the following to @pedromcunha — I'm noting them as closed from my side:
One residual nit (non-blocking, optional)Casing on the three swap definition labels. Lines 98/101/104 read Verdict: Content is accurate, the math is sound, and the change matches the internal GDoc draft per the author. Every higher-priority item is resolved; the only remaining item is an optional cosmetic casing tweak. Nothing blocks merge. |
3 participants
Summary
Significantly expanded and reorganized the fee structure documentation to provide clearer explanations of how Relay's fees work, added detailed revenue share information for API customers, and improved the categorization of different transaction types.
Key Changes
Restructured fee categories: Renamed "Relay Fees" section title to "Fee Structure" and clarified that fees apply to "token swap or bridge powered by Relay"
Enhanced Execution Fees explanation:
Improved Swap Fees section: Added note about Hyperliquid's $1 activation fee that is passed through to users
Expanded Relay Fees documentation:
Enhanced fee category definitions:
Minor formatting improvements: Fixed trailing whitespace and improved markdown consistency
Notable Details
The documentation now clearly distinguishes between end-user fees and revenue share opportunities for API customers, with explicit qualification criteria and volume-based tiers. The expanded token lists and examples make it easier for users to determine which fee category applies to their transactions.
https://claude.ai/code/session_01JQ8XT6661N4WzF4Q7vt8WF