User story
As a developer implementing fee abstraction, I want to know which wallets actually construct CIP-64 transactions, so I don't ship a feature that silently does nothing for most of my users.
Context & evidence
Verified against the working tree at 879ff180.
The docs describe fee abstraction as universally available and never mention that the wallet client must build the CIP-64 transaction:
build-on-celo/fee-abstraction/overview.mdx:27 — "This means fee abstraction works with any externally owned account (EOA). No smart contract wallets, no relayers, no extra infrastructure needed." True of the protocol, and it reads as "every wallet works". Nothing qualifies it.tooling/wallets/index.mdx:11 sends readers to the Celo Native Wallets section for fee abstraction, but that section carries no per-wallet fee-abstraction indicator. The Ledger support: field on each wallet means "works with a Ledger device" — unrelated, and actively confusing next to this question.build-on-celo/build-on-minipay/overview.mdx:53 documents it correctly for MiniPay — so the information exists on exactly one wallet's page, where nobody comparing wallets will look.grep -rniE "if (the |your )?wallet .*(does not|doesn't|cannot)" --include='*.mdx' . returns nothing: the failure mode is undocumented.
The failure mode. A dApp sets feeCurrency correctly. The user's wallet doesn't implement CIP-64, so it submits a standard transaction and gas is paid in CELO. Nothing errors. The developer sees CELO deducted and cannot tell whether their code, the adapter address, or the wallet is at fault — the one explanation the docs never offer is the correct one.
This came from the docs assistant (#2250), which answered a question about wallet support by faithfully summarising the pages above. The answer was accurate to the docs and useless to the reader — exactly the coverage gap the assistant is meant to surface.
Research needed: the Ledger announcement
Ledger shipped CIP-64 fee-abstraction support in July 2026 and it is absent from these docs. Ledger is not listed on the wallets page at all.
- Celo's own announcement: https://blog.celo.org/ledger-now-supports-celo-fee-abstraction-unlocking-seamless-stablecoin-gas-payments-with-cip-64-30d26a11df1f
- Reported scope: 18 Celo-native assets usable for gas — USDT, USDC, USDm, EURm, GBPm, JPYm, CADm, AUDm, CHFm, BRLm, NGNm, PHPm, COPm, KESm, ZARm, XOFm, GHSm, WETH — building on Ledger Live's December 2025 Celo support.
OPEN — confirm before publishing: whether support is Ledger Live, the Celo Ledger app, or both, and whether any minimum version applies. The announcement blog returned 403 to automated fetching, so the asset list above is from secondary coverage and must be checked against the primary source or with Ledger directly.
Acceptance criteria
Non-goals
Changing protocol behaviour or the fallback itself. Auditing every wallet in the ecosystem — the table covers wallets Celo documents.
Depends on / blocks
None. Related: #2250 (the assistant that surfaced this).
Design / technical notes
OPEN — the support list is the substance of this issue and is not yet verified. MiniPay is confirmed in-repo (build-on-minipay/overview.mdx:53). Valora is asserted in-repo (tooling/wallets/index.mdx:36, "supports Celo's ability to pay for transactions with stablecoins") but not as CIP-64 specifically. Ledger is sourced only to the July 2026 announcement above. No wallet has been verified as not supporting CIP-64 — a wrong support table is worse than none, so each row needs a dated source before publishing.
A support table dates the moment it ships. Prefer a short list of confirmed wallets with dates over an exhaustive matrix, and say when it was last checked.
User story
As a developer implementing fee abstraction, I want to know which wallets actually construct CIP-64 transactions, so I don't ship a feature that silently does nothing for most of my users.
Context & evidence
Verified against the working tree at
879ff180.The docs describe fee abstraction as universally available and never mention that the wallet client must build the CIP-64 transaction:
build-on-celo/fee-abstraction/overview.mdx:27— "This means fee abstraction works with any externally owned account (EOA). No smart contract wallets, no relayers, no extra infrastructure needed." True of the protocol, and it reads as "every wallet works". Nothing qualifies it.tooling/wallets/index.mdx:11sends readers to the Celo Native Wallets section for fee abstraction, but that section carries no per-wallet fee-abstraction indicator. TheLedger support:field on each wallet means "works with a Ledger device" — unrelated, and actively confusing next to this question.build-on-celo/build-on-minipay/overview.mdx:53documents it correctly for MiniPay — so the information exists on exactly one wallet's page, where nobody comparing wallets will look.grep -rniE "if (the |your )?wallet .*(does not|doesn't|cannot)" --include='*.mdx' .returns nothing: the failure mode is undocumented.The failure mode. A dApp sets
feeCurrencycorrectly. The user's wallet doesn't implement CIP-64, so it submits a standard transaction and gas is paid in CELO. Nothing errors. The developer sees CELO deducted and cannot tell whether their code, the adapter address, or the wallet is at fault — the one explanation the docs never offer is the correct one.This came from the docs assistant (#2250), which answered a question about wallet support by faithfully summarising the pages above. The answer was accurate to the docs and useless to the reader — exactly the coverage gap the assistant is meant to surface.
Research needed: the Ledger announcement
Ledger shipped CIP-64 fee-abstraction support in July 2026 and it is absent from these docs. Ledger is not listed on the wallets page at all.
OPEN — confirm before publishing: whether support is Ledger Live, the Celo Ledger app, or both, and whether any minimum version applies. The announcement blog returned 403 to automated fetching, so the asset list above is from secondary coverage and must be checked against the primary source or with Ledger directly.
Acceptance criteria
fee-abstraction/overview.mdxstates that the wallet must construct the CIP-64 transaction, and that a wallet without support submits a normal transaction paying gas in CELO — no errortooling/wallets/index.mdxwith its CIP-64 support and supported assetsLedger support:field is disambiguated or renamed so it is not read as CIP-64 supportNon-goals
Changing protocol behaviour or the fallback itself. Auditing every wallet in the ecosystem — the table covers wallets Celo documents.
Depends on / blocks
None. Related: #2250 (the assistant that surfaced this).
Design / technical notes
OPEN — the support list is the substance of this issue and is not yet verified. MiniPay is confirmed in-repo (
build-on-minipay/overview.mdx:53). Valora is asserted in-repo (tooling/wallets/index.mdx:36, "supports Celo's ability to pay for transactions with stablecoins") but not as CIP-64 specifically. Ledger is sourced only to the July 2026 announcement above. No wallet has been verified as not supporting CIP-64 — a wrong support table is worse than none, so each row needs a dated source before publishing.A support table dates the moment it ships. Prefer a short list of confirmed wallets with dates over an exhaustive matrix, and say when it was last checked.