Should we rename the "operator" and the "operatorFee" arguments?

[PaulRBerg]

In #220, I have implemented operator fees (#208) by adding the two following arguments in the create functions:

• operator
• operatorFee

But @andreivladbrg has pointed out to me that this term is already used by the ERC-721 standard to refer to an approved account that can transfer the NFT on behalf of the owner.

I agree with Andrei that this is not good - it's confusing to have the same term referring to two different concepts in the same code base.

Alternatives:

• agent
• broker
• intermediary (though this doesn't sound nice in the wider context of decentralization)

None is better than operator, though.

[andreivladbrg]

Given that this model of fees is very similar to a referral program, what do you think about:

• referralFee
• referre

[PaulRBerg]

We might need a third opinion from @razgraf and @gavriliumircea to adjudicate this.

[razgraf]

Aave's using referral and it makes sense. But I do enjoy the sound of broker more. No fancy reason, just sounds sexy.

[PaulRBerg]

Thanks, Razvan.

Aave's case is a bit different because their rewards are continuous, whereas our fees are one-off (ironically). I think that referral fits better in a continuous context.

Separately, I envision Sablier V2 being used by such corporate entities as Coinbase. For these users, "broker" is a much better fitting term.

[gavriliumircea]

I think for our case the "broker" would be better. It makes more sense for me to use this one instead of "refferer".

[PaulRBerg]

Thanks, Mircea. broker is the winner.

Gonna lock the convo.