feat: Implement SNIP29 #1377

florian-bellotti · 2025-04-09T07:31:37Z

Motivation and Resolution

This PR introduces a Provider that enables direct interaction with a Paymaster service and integrates it into the Account class to simplify its usage.

The implementation follows the SNIP-29 specification:
📄 SNIP-29 on GitHub

⚠️ Note: This may not be the final commit for full SNIP-29 integration.
However, I’d like to start gathering feedback early to ensure that the implementation aligns with the starknet.js architecture and coding conventions.

Main Release

Release

PhilippeR26 · 2025-04-09T08:05:49Z

Seems very very early to propose a PR on this subject...

0xMentorNotAPseudo · 2025-04-10T13:32:36Z

Seems very very early to propose a PR on this subject...

Not very very early at all - we’re actively finalizing SNIP-29, with StarkWare involved and supportive.
Proactive PRs = faster feedback = better standards. What’s the issue?

cc @leo-starkware

leo-starkware · 2025-04-10T14:21:54Z

Seems very very early to propose a PR on this subject...

Not very very early at all - we’re actively finalizing SNIP-29, with StarkWare involved and supportive. Proactive PRs = faster feedback = better standards. What’s the issue?

cc @leo-starkware

Agreed with @0xMentorNotAPseudo - Starknet v0.14 means that the topic of paymaster becomes more important than ever and starknet.js is a key player for ecosystem adoption. I'm all for making it happen!

PhilippeR26 · 2025-04-23T13:31:02Z

When I try await account.paymaster.getSupportedTokensAndPrices(); (Mainnet & Testnet), I have :

request: {
    method: 'paymaster_getSupportedTokensAndPrices',
    params: undefined
  },
  baseError: { code: -32601, message: 'Method not found' }

Is your PR up-to-date?
Are the urls currently working?

florian-bellotti · 2025-04-28T10:18:00Z

We have updated this pull request to align with the latest SNIP-29 changes.

Notes:

Two Paymaster RPC URLs are provided in the constants. Both are valid, but currently only the Sepolia instance is live.
A full example of Paymaster usage is available in www/doc/guides/paymaster.md.

PhilippeR26 · 2025-05-02T06:52:25Z

Is a non-SNIP-9 compatible account able to use SNIP-29 features?

PhilippeR26 · 2025-05-02T06:57:00Z

When testing account.execute, I have this error :

Error: Unexpected token '<', "<html>
<h"... is not valid JSON
    at _PaymasterRpc.errorHandler (/home/edmond/Documents/starknet/starknet.js/dist/index.js:8202:13)
    at _PaymasterRpc.fetchEndpoint (/home/edmond/Documents/starknet/starknet.js/dist/index.js:8213:12)

Seems that the AVNU backend is reporting an error message in HTML, not in JSON format. So, Starknet.js is not able to decode and throw a documented Error.
Seems you have to change something in your backend.

florian-bellotti · 2025-05-02T07:21:20Z

Is a non-SNIP-9 compatible account able to use SNIP-29 features?

No. accounts must be compatible with snip 9

florian-bellotti · 2025-05-02T07:21:48Z

Two Paymaster RPC URLs are provided in the constants. Both are valid, but currently only the Sepolia instance is live.

Two Paymaster RPC URLs are provided in the constants. Both are valid, but currently only the Sepolia instance is live.

PhilippeR26 · 2025-05-02T07:30:17Z

Two Paymaster RPC URLs are provided in the constants. Both are valid, but currently only the Sepolia instance is live.

Two Paymaster RPC URLs are provided in the constants. Both are valid, but currently only the Sepolia instance is live.

The problem is not to reach an URL. I can ask to Sepolia URL, using

const res = await account0.paymaster.isAvailable();
const supported = await account0.paymaster.getSupportedTokens();

It works. No problem.
As written above, the problem is the format of errors reported by the backend.

PhilippeR26 · 2025-05-02T07:34:44Z

Is a non-SNIP-9 compatible account able to use SNIP-29 features?

No. accounts must be compatible with snip 9

So, it should

be documented in the guide.

be checked prior to try to proceed. We have already a method for this check:

starknet.js/src/account/default.ts

Lines 572 to 590 in 960981c

    
             /** 
        
              * Verify if an account is compatible with SNIP-9 outside execution, and with which version of this standard. 
        
              * @returns {OutsideExecutionVersion} Not compatible, V1, V2. 
        
              * @example 
        
              * ```typescript 
        
              * const result = myAccount.getSnip9Version(); 
        
              * // result = "V1" 
        
              * ``` 
        
              */ 
        
             public async getSnip9Version(): Promise<OutsideExecutionVersion> { 
        
               if (await supportsInterface(this, this.address, SNIP9_V2_INTERFACE_ID)) { 
        
                 return OutsideExecutionVersion.V2; 
        
               } 
        
               if (await supportsInterface(this, this.address, SNIP9_V1_INTERFACE_ID)) { 
        
                 return OutsideExecutionVersion.V1; 
        
               } 
        
               // Account does not support either version 2 or version 1 
        
               return OutsideExecutionVersion.UNSUPPORTED; 
        
             }

PhilippeR26 · 2025-05-05T12:59:35Z

@penovicp ,
You should check how fetch is handled in src/paymaster/rpc.ts.
Seems to be in clash with the Starknet.js strategy for V7 you are currently implementing.

PhilippeR26 · 2025-05-05T16:52:53Z

I tried to test, this afternoon, in Testnet.
4 tokens are listed as usable to pay fees : ETH, STRK, USDC, SWAY.
When I try to execute a tx with each of these token, I have :

request: {
    method: 'paymaster_executeTransaction',
    params: { transaction: [Object], parameters: [Object] }
  },
  baseError: {
    code: 156,
    message: 'An error occurred (TRANSACTION_EXECUTION_ERROR)',
    data: { execution_error: 'invalid typed data' }
  }

and when using sponsored, I have :

request: {
  method: 'paymaster_buildTransaction',
  params: { transaction: [Object], parameters: [Object] }
},
baseError: {
  code: 163,
  message: 'An error occurred (UNKNOWN_ERROR)',
  data: 'api key is invalid'
}

The content of my account :

So, what should work, and what should not?

florian-bellotti · 2025-05-06T12:48:23Z

I tried to test, this afternoon, in Testnet. 4 tokens are listed as usable to pay fees : ETH, STRK, USDC, SWAY. When I try to execute a tx with each of these token, I have :
request: {
    method: 'paymaster_executeTransaction',
    params: { transaction: [Object], parameters: [Object] }
  },
  baseError: {
    code: 156,
    message: 'An error occurred (TRANSACTION_EXECUTION_ERROR)',
    data: { execution_error: 'invalid typed data' }
  }
and when using sponsored, I have :
request: {
  method: 'paymaster_buildTransaction',
  params: { transaction: [Object], parameters: [Object] }
},
baseError: {
  code: 163,
  message: 'An error occurred (UNKNOWN_ERROR)',
  data: 'api key is invalid'
}
The content of my account :

So, what should work, and what should not?

We had an issue on the paymaster service. The bug has been fix. You can test again the paymaster in classic fee mode. Thanks

PhilippeR26 · 2025-05-06T13:55:11Z

Well, messages are different, but result is the same :

SWAY:

request: {
    method: 'paymaster_executeTransaction',
    params: { transaction: [Object], parameters: [Object] }
  },
  baseError: {
    code: 156,
    message: 'An error occurred (TRANSACTION_EXECUTION_ERROR)',
    data: {
      execution_error: 'execution error starknet error Transaction execution has failed:\n' +
        '0: Error in the called contract (contract address: 0x01e63177836bca5b37de3e3211c1b541c6da829edc87a482f1f351f269732b3a, class hash: 0x029927c8af6bccf3f6fda035981e765a7bdbf18a2dc0d630494f8758aa908e2b, selector: 0x015d40a3d6ca2ac30f4031e42be28da9b056fef9bb7357ac5e85627ee876e5ad):\n' +
        'Execution failed. Failure reason:\n' +
        "(0x617267656e742f6d756c746963616c6c2d6661696c6564 ('argent/multicall-failed'), 0x0 (''), 0x617267656e742f6d756c746963616c6c2d6661696c6564 ('argent/multicall-failed'), 0x1, 0x45524332303a20696e73756666696369656e742062616c616e6365 ('ERC20: insufficient balance'), 0x454e545259504f494e545f4641494c4544 ('ENTRYPOINT_FAILED'), 0x454e545259504f494e545f4641494c4544 ('ENTRYPOINT_FAILED'), 0x454e545259504f494e545f4641494c4544 ('ENTRYPOINT_FAILED')).\n"
    }
  }

ETH & STRK :

request: {
    method: 'paymaster_executeTransaction',
    params: { transaction: [Object], parameters: [Object] }
  },
  baseError: {
    code: 156,
    message: 'An error occurred (TRANSACTION_EXECUTION_ERROR)',
    data: {
      execution_error: 'execution error Error occurred while creating a new object: Connection refused (os error 111)'
    }
  }

USDC :

request: {
    method: 'paymaster_executeTransaction',
    params: { transaction: [Object], parameters: [Object] }
  },
  baseError: {
    code: 156,
    message: 'An error occurred (TRANSACTION_EXECUTION_ERROR)',
    data: {
      execution_error: 'execution error starknet error Transaction execution has failed:\n' +
        '0: Error in the called contract (contract address: 0x01e63177836bca5b37de3e3211c1b541c6da829edc87a482f1f351f269732b3a, class hash: 0x029927c8af6bccf3f6fda035981e765a7bdbf18a2dc0d630494f8758aa908e2b, selector: 0x015d40a3d6ca2ac30f4031e42be28da9b056fef9bb7357ac5e85627ee876e5ad):\n' +
        'Execution failed. Failure reason:\n' +
        "(0x617267656e742f6d756c746963616c6c2d6661696c6564 ('argent/multicall-failed'), 0x0 (''), 0x617267656e742f6d756c746963616c6c2d6661696c6564 ('argent/multicall-failed'), 0x1, 0x753235365f737562204f766572666c6f77 ('u256_sub Overflow'), 0x454e545259504f494e545f4641494c4544 ('ENTRYPOINT_FAILED'), 0x454e545259504f494e545f4641494c4544 ('ENTRYPOINT_FAILED'), 0x454e545259504f494e545f4641494c4544 ('ENTRYPOINT_FAILED')).\n"
    }
  }

florian-bellotti · 2025-05-06T14:23:16Z

20: insufficient balan

Well, messages are different, but result is the same :

SWAY:

request: {
    method: 'paymaster_executeTransaction',
    params: { transaction: [Object], parameters: [Object] }
  },
  baseError: {
    code: 156,
    message: 'An error occurred (TRANSACTION_EXECUTION_ERROR)',
    data: {
      execution_error: 'execution error starknet error Transaction execution has failed:\n' +
        '0: Error in the called contract (contract address: 0x01e63177836bca5b37de3e3211c1b541c6da829edc87a482f1f351f269732b3a, class hash: 0x029927c8af6bccf3f6fda035981e765a7bdbf18a2dc0d630494f8758aa908e2b, selector: 0x015d40a3d6ca2ac30f4031e42be28da9b056fef9bb7357ac5e85627ee876e5ad):\n' +
        'Execution failed. Failure reason:\n' +
        "(0x617267656e742f6d756c746963616c6c2d6661696c6564 ('argent/multicall-failed'), 0x0 (''), 0x617267656e742f6d756c746963616c6c2d6661696c6564 ('argent/multicall-failed'), 0x1, 0x45524332303a20696e73756666696369656e742062616c616e6365 ('ERC20: insufficient balance'), 0x454e545259504f494e545f4641494c4544 ('ENTRYPOINT_FAILED'), 0x454e545259504f494e545f4641494c4544 ('ENTRYPOINT_FAILED'), 0x454e545259504f494e545f4641494c4544 ('ENTRYPOINT_FAILED')).\n"
    }
  }

ETH & STRK :

request: {
    method: 'paymaster_executeTransaction',
    params: { transaction: [Object], parameters: [Object] }
  },
  baseError: {
    code: 156,
    message: 'An error occurred (TRANSACTION_EXECUTION_ERROR)',
    data: {
      execution_error: 'execution error Error occurred while creating a new object: Connection refused (os error 111)'
    }
  }

USDC :

request: {
    method: 'paymaster_executeTransaction',
    params: { transaction: [Object], parameters: [Object] }
  },
  baseError: {
    code: 156,
    message: 'An error occurred (TRANSACTION_EXECUTION_ERROR)',
    data: {
      execution_error: 'execution error starknet error Transaction execution has failed:\n' +
        '0: Error in the called contract (contract address: 0x01e63177836bca5b37de3e3211c1b541c6da829edc87a482f1f351f269732b3a, class hash: 0x029927c8af6bccf3f6fda035981e765a7bdbf18a2dc0d630494f8758aa908e2b, selector: 0x015d40a3d6ca2ac30f4031e42be28da9b056fef9bb7357ac5e85627ee876e5ad):\n' +
        'Execution failed. Failure reason:\n' +
        "(0x617267656e742f6d756c746963616c6c2d6661696c6564 ('argent/multicall-failed'), 0x0 (''), 0x617267656e742f6d756c746963616c6c2d6661696c6564 ('argent/multicall-failed'), 0x1, 0x753235365f737562204f766572666c6f77 ('u256_sub Overflow'), 0x454e545259504f494e545f4641494c4544 ('ENTRYPOINT_FAILED'), 0x454e545259504f494e545f4641494c4544 ('ENTRYPOINT_FAILED'), 0x454e545259504f494e545f4641494c4544 ('ENTRYPOINT_FAILED')).\n"
    }
  }

I just fixed the issue you had with ETH and STRK.
As for SWAY and USDC, the error comes from the token contracts themselves — they indicate that you don't have enough tokens.

PhilippeR26 · 2025-05-06T15:57:02Z

I have enough SWAY & USDC in my 2 test accounts.
I suspect a problem due to non standard decimals for these tokens.
A build reponse for USDC is fee:

 {
  gas_token_price_in_strk: 232170n,
  estimated_fee_in_strk: 9561392373527680n,
  estimated_fee_in_gas_token: 41182721167798078n,
  suggested_max_fee_in_strk: 47806961867638400n,
  suggested_max_fee_in_gas_token: 205913605838990394n
}

estimated_fee_in_gas_token: 41182721167798078n is 41182721167.798078 USDC (6 decimals).
For sure, I have not enough USDC tokens in my account... 🥴

florian-bellotti · 2025-05-06T19:17:31Z

I have enough SWAY & USDC in my 2 test accounts. I suspect a problem due to non standard decimals for these tokens. A build reponse for USDC is fee:
 {
  gas_token_price_in_strk: 232170n,
  estimated_fee_in_strk: 9561392373527680n,
  estimated_fee_in_gas_token: 41182721167798078n,
  suggested_max_fee_in_strk: 47806961867638400n,
  suggested_max_fee_in_gas_token: 205913605838990394n
}
estimated_fee_in_gas_token: 41182721167798078n is 41182721167.798078 USDC (6 decimals). For sure, I have not enough USDC tokens in my account... 🥴

We had an issue on the sepolia price feed. It's now fixed. Thanks

PhilippeR26 · 2025-05-07T07:59:10Z

Hello,
Seems better.
Nevertheless, I have a doubt about gas_token_price_in_strk. It's not at all consistent with AVNU DAPP:

ETH
gas_token_price_in_strk: 1770809404985164300000n
Meaning:

Price of 1 ETH = 1770.8094049851643 STRK
Price of 1 STRK = 0.0005647135130324079 ETH

AVNU is saying: 1 ETH = 4555 STRK

( Braavos account is a Testnet account)

USDC
gas_token_price_in_strk: 232170382590321130n
Meaning:

Price of 1 USDC = 0.23217038259032113 STRK
Price of 1 STRK = 4.307181600180938 USDC

AVNU is saying: 1 USDC = 5.02 STRK

SWAY
gas_token_price_in_strk: 0.001941805068259707n
Meaning:

Price of 1 SWAY = 0.001941805068259707 STRK
Price of 1 STRK = 514.9847512223379 SWAY

AVNU is not able to quote SWAY -> STRK

To have STRK at 4.3 USDC is a beautiful dream, but it's problematic to check that prices proposed by SNIP-29 are consistent...
Is it possible to have gas_token_price_in_strk more consistent with AVNU swap values?

florian-bellotti · 2025-05-07T08:37:12Z

Do you have any feedback regarding the PR ? Does the implementation align with the starknet.js architecture and coding conventions ?

PhilippeR26 · 2025-05-07T10:00:48Z

@tabaktoni & @penovicp will answer on this subject.
My personal feeling is that all the code related to SNIP-29 should be more isolated.
I think also that something is missing about estimation of fees. We have already this kind of things: https://starknetjs.com/docs/next/guides/estimate_fees#estimateinvokefee. I think that DAPP devs would like to have something as simple for paymaster.
I am currently writing a small test DAPP, to have a better feedback of the DX.

tabaktoni · 2025-05-09T10:01:16Z

For now we can mege it as it is, than we will need to create separate PR referencing to this one to isolate implementation so that we have clean solution.

solution
My general idea is to create a baseAccount from an existing account that is a pure account implementation.
Then create an account extending baseAccount with service paymaster extension
solution
Use mixin as for starknetid on provider, but this has some bundling side-effects in class recreation and refference.

PhilippeR26 · 2025-05-11T06:52:00Z

Hello,
I built a test DAPP, and tested transactions.
My Dev Experience feedback:
To solve immediately

WalletAccount.connect() and WalletAccount.connectSilent() are the normal way to create a WalletAccount instance. The paymaster parameters are missing in the signatures of these methods.

Improvements

In TokenDataType, add name & symbol properties. It's very easy for the backend to add them, and frontend dev wants in all cases these data. It will save async work to the frontend.
Still in TokenDataType type, the address should by provided in Hex64, to avoid this kind of problem : tokendata.address===USDCaddress failing due to address in Hex63 (or less).
Something has to be done to estimate fees as easily as a standard transaction.

PhilippeR26 · 2025-05-11T06:54:04Z

How to use deploymentData ?
Is it for accounts? contracts?

tabaktoni · 2025-05-12T11:55:50Z

I rebased this one to develop and will merge it after exporting types to types-js and re-importing it.
Let's open a separate issue/discussion about comments mentioned here and standing tasks.

PhilippeR26 · 2025-05-12T13:37:39Z

You should solve problem of WalletAccount.connect() and WalletAccount.connectSilent() described above prior to merge ...

PhilippeR26 · 2025-05-13T10:15:05Z

I tried to use SNIP-29 with an account that uses ETH signature (and is SNIP-9 compatible).
The fee price of the verification of the signature is way more expensive than standard Starknet signature.
With default suggested fees, I have an Error 156 max amount of gas token too low.
So, I tried to use the maxEstimatedFeeInGasToken parameter to increase the maxfees:

const res2 = await accountEthOZ17.execute(
    myCall,
    {
      paymaster: {
        feeMode: { mode: "default", gasToken },
        maxEstimatedFeeInGasToken: BigInt(builtUSDC.fee.suggested_max_fee_in_gas_token) * multiplyFees,
      }
    }
  );

Even with multiplyFees = 50, I have still the same error.
Is the maxEstimatedFeeInGasToken parameter taken into account?

0xlny · 2025-05-14T12:30:09Z

WalletAccount.connect() and WalletAccount.connectSilent() are the normal way to create a WalletAccount instance. The paymaster parameters are missing in the signatures of these methods.

Hello, WalletAccount.connect() and WalletAccount.connectSilent() now accepts paymaster parameters

PhilippeR26 · 2025-05-14T13:26:48Z

Nice.
We have now something operational for DAPP transactions.

@0xlny Have you some answers about my questions above? (especially about the problem with ETH signature) Or maybe would you prefer to discuss in an other space?

For info, I tried also to deploy an account, but I have an error -32602: Invalid params: "missing field "unique" at line 1 column 373"

0xlny · 2025-05-14T13:37:38Z

I'll check now for account deployment

About the issue with ETH signature we can discuss it on TG, probably requires different gas calculation like account with 2fa for exemple

PhilippeR26 · 2025-05-14T13:55:27Z

In Telegram at @lenny_0x ?
Mine is @PhilR26

penovicp and others added 2 commits February 7, 2025 11:24

Merge pull request starknet-io#1305 from starknet-io/develop

d7fef88

Main Release

Merge pull request starknet-io#1363 from starknet-io/develop

af4af75

Release

florian-bellotti force-pushed the feature/snip29 branch 2 times, most recently from a8ebf8c to f34bfde Compare April 9, 2025 07:32

feat: Implement SNIP29

1575ea3

florian-bellotti force-pushed the feature/snip29 branch from f34bfde to 1575ea3 Compare April 9, 2025 07:33

tabaktoni requested review from tabaktoni, penovicp and dhruvkelawala April 22, 2025 09:10

tabaktoni self-assigned this Apr 22, 2025

feat: Apply latest SNIP29 changes

51a2f2a

feat: Add getSnip9Version check in buildPaymasterTransaction

f31b8a9

tabaktoni changed the base branch from main to develop May 12, 2025 10:42

tabaktoni added 2 commits May 12, 2025 13:46

Merge branch 'develop' into feature/snip29

571443a

chore: fix after rebase to develop commit

b3c8488

tabaktoni mentioned this pull request May 12, 2025

fix: add snip-29 implementation for RPC 0.8 starknet-io/types-js#37

Merged

tabaktoni and others added 4 commits May 13, 2025 14:00

fix: bump types-js and import paymaster api from it

cc7defb

chore: jest mock fetch fix

17a9873

fix: bump typesjs

6ea8e1f

fix: add paymaster params to connect() & connectSilent()

90baa9c

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

feat: Implement SNIP29 #1377

feat: Implement SNIP29 #1377

florian-bellotti commented Apr 9, 2025

PhilippeR26 commented Apr 9, 2025

0xMentorNotAPseudo commented Apr 10, 2025

leo-starkware commented Apr 10, 2025

PhilippeR26 commented Apr 23, 2025 •

edited

Loading

florian-bellotti commented Apr 28, 2025

PhilippeR26 commented May 2, 2025

PhilippeR26 commented May 2, 2025

florian-bellotti commented May 2, 2025

florian-bellotti commented May 2, 2025

PhilippeR26 commented May 2, 2025

PhilippeR26 commented May 2, 2025

PhilippeR26 commented May 5, 2025

PhilippeR26 commented May 5, 2025 •

edited

Loading

florian-bellotti commented May 6, 2025

PhilippeR26 commented May 6, 2025 •

edited

Loading

florian-bellotti commented May 6, 2025

PhilippeR26 commented May 6, 2025

florian-bellotti commented May 6, 2025

PhilippeR26 commented May 7, 2025

florian-bellotti commented May 7, 2025

PhilippeR26 commented May 7, 2025

tabaktoni commented May 9, 2025

PhilippeR26 commented May 11, 2025 •

edited

Loading

PhilippeR26 commented May 11, 2025

tabaktoni commented May 12, 2025 •

edited

Loading

PhilippeR26 commented May 12, 2025

PhilippeR26 commented May 13, 2025

0xlny commented May 14, 2025

PhilippeR26 commented May 14, 2025

0xlny commented May 14, 2025

PhilippeR26 commented May 14, 2025 •

edited

Loading

feat: Implement SNIP29 #1377

Are you sure you want to change the base?

feat: Implement SNIP29 #1377

Conversation

florian-bellotti commented Apr 9, 2025

Motivation and Resolution

PhilippeR26 commented Apr 9, 2025

0xMentorNotAPseudo commented Apr 10, 2025

leo-starkware commented Apr 10, 2025

PhilippeR26 commented Apr 23, 2025 • edited Loading

florian-bellotti commented Apr 28, 2025

PhilippeR26 commented May 2, 2025

PhilippeR26 commented May 2, 2025

florian-bellotti commented May 2, 2025

florian-bellotti commented May 2, 2025

PhilippeR26 commented May 2, 2025

PhilippeR26 commented May 2, 2025

PhilippeR26 commented May 5, 2025

PhilippeR26 commented May 5, 2025 • edited Loading

florian-bellotti commented May 6, 2025

PhilippeR26 commented May 6, 2025 • edited Loading

florian-bellotti commented May 6, 2025

PhilippeR26 commented May 6, 2025

florian-bellotti commented May 6, 2025

PhilippeR26 commented May 7, 2025

florian-bellotti commented May 7, 2025

PhilippeR26 commented May 7, 2025

tabaktoni commented May 9, 2025

PhilippeR26 commented May 11, 2025 • edited Loading

PhilippeR26 commented May 11, 2025

tabaktoni commented May 12, 2025 • edited Loading

PhilippeR26 commented May 12, 2025

PhilippeR26 commented May 13, 2025

0xlny commented May 14, 2025

PhilippeR26 commented May 14, 2025

0xlny commented May 14, 2025

PhilippeR26 commented May 14, 2025 • edited Loading

PhilippeR26 commented Apr 23, 2025 •

edited

Loading

PhilippeR26 commented May 5, 2025 •

edited

Loading

PhilippeR26 commented May 6, 2025 •

edited

Loading

PhilippeR26 commented May 11, 2025 •

edited

Loading

tabaktoni commented May 12, 2025 •

edited

Loading

PhilippeR26 commented May 14, 2025 •

edited

Loading