<p></p>
<p>Hi <a class="user-mention" data-hovercard-type="user" data-hovercard-url="/users/refund-agent2/hovercard" data-octo-click="hovercard-link-click" data-octo-dimensions="link_type:self" href="https://github.com/refund-agent2">@refund-agent2</a></p>
<p>Thanks for the write up.</p>
<p>I think the costs of arbitration should be covered by the trade fees. No trader ever really knows when you might need it.</p>
<p>I like the idea of DAO insurance for when things go wrong, but in reality the BTC being burned is not differentiated in anyway.</p>
<p>With regards the fees suggested as a percentage of security deposit I think a standard percentage of security deposit should be used.</p>
<p>I worry that the proposed changes will mean that trades that have not been successful in mediation due to an unresponsive trader will end up with less BTC than proposed by the mediator.</p>
<p>Using your example:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>In example, for a 0.012 BTC trade with a 15% security deposit where the seller is not responding, where the delayed payout would be a total of 0.0156 BTC, the buyer would receive 0.01533BTC and DAO would keep 0.00027BTC.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Trade amount: 0.015 BTC<br>
Buyer security deposit: 0.0018<br>
Seller security deposit: 0.0018</p>
<p>If seller is not responding mediator will propose.</p>
<p><strong>Mediator proposal</strong></p>
<p>Buyer to receive: 0.00181<br>
Seller: to receive: 0.0005</p>
<p><strong>Refund agent proposed payout</strong><br>
Buyer to receive: 0.01533</p>
<p>Buyer would be 0.00277 BTC worse off though no fault of their own an inconvenienced more by the process going the mediation.</p>
<p>I do not think the party not at fault should be in a worse position as a result of their counter party being unresponsive.</p>
<p>I think it would be good to establish if their is a consensus for users entering arbitration. And if so in what cases.</p>
<p>I will vote this down as I do not think the current proposal is a fair outcome for all occasions.</p>

<p style="font-size:small;-webkit-text-size-adjust:none;color:#666;">—<br />You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.<br />Reply to this email directly, <a href="https://github.com/bisq-network/proposals/issues/335#issuecomment-839155095">view it on GitHub</a>, or <a href="https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AJFFTNTWVTRDBEZLDJBLRPTTNGJ7TANCNFSM44QWH3TQ">unsubscribe</a>.<img src="https://github.com/notifications/beacon/AJFFTNR4B3VX6ZCKVQPIKMLTNGJ7TA5CNFSM44QWH3T2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOGICH3FY.gif" height="1" width="1" alt="" /></p>
<script type="application/ld+json">[
{
"@context": "http://schema.org",
"@type": "EmailMessage",
"potentialAction": {
"@type": "ViewAction",
"target": "https://github.com/bisq-network/proposals/issues/335#issuecomment-839155095",
"url": "https://github.com/bisq-network/proposals/issues/335#issuecomment-839155095",
"name": "View Issue"
},
"description": "View this Issue on GitHub",
"publisher": {
"@type": "Organization",
"name": "GitHub",
"url": "https://github.com"
}
}
]</script>