[bisq-network/proposals] Proposed dev priorities (#91)
notifications at github.com
Thu May 16 10:44:57 UTC 2019
I (am sorry to) disagree about having protection tools at the top of priorities.
As I already exposed it, imo this is running after elusive users.
The most we try to protect them (largely from themselves and the fiat banking system) the more we push them on irresponsability and need for (unscalable) support.
Not speaking about the fact that having some Bisq mechanisms entering this area has probably some dangerous legal issues.
Not speaking also about the fact that trying to correct from outside a system which is **crappy by design** is a never ending story.
I know (and I'm happy) that Bisq first goal was to put *"fiat on ramp"*.
But, after 3.5 years of operation, what is seeable from the numbers is that fiat on Bisq is in majority, a great number but of tiny trades (+ decreasing volume from 2017->2018).
It's more a game than serious **useful** volume (reported to the number of users).
(This has imo several deep reasons which have no reason to change nextly.)
We see those weeks that BSQ, which is a **simple token** and not even a coin, which has itself small volume ... is nevertheless already challenging EUR and USD !! which are amid the most used currencies in the world. This says very long about the true sizes of the concerned communities.
I bet that the next protection tools will not increase the fiat trade volume, but how nice the tools will be, this will help the fiat volume to still decrease. The more we try to protect fiat traders, the more those protections (because of the technicity/delays/limits) make them run away.
When I discuss about Bisq with some friends who trade, they always tell me that Bisq is already too complicated. And some of those guys are technical and should really imo be comfortable with Bisq.
I don't see how adding steps in the current process can arrange things.
Imo the best protection for users should be to tell them that if they lose money due to chargebacks, that's simply outside the scope of Bisq (which is the reality), and the loss is for them. Period.
On its nice path, Bisq got the opportunity (which has nothing to do with hazard) to cross the road and needs of some nice cryptocoins.
The users of those cryptocoins are also real life users. They merit imo also their fair part of care, ie more care than fiat/fun users.
It's those guys who are possibly building a world with functional cryptos and thus it's absolutely unavoidable that those users are also the future of Bisq (if Bisq dies not before).
There is few chances that peoples still holding to back and forth playing fiat/crypto represent the future.
Fiat world and crypto world are distinct (and **diverging**) worlds, because of the **willingness** of the fiat world. Users who still want to have their feet on both world use centralized exchange at 99.x%.
And, even if we see regularly centralized exchanges being stripped ... guess what, users **continue** stubornly to use those platform.
N times we have seen users being scammed on large scales. At each time one of us wrote *"ah, Bisq will get new users"* ... but in fact no. This really simply doesn't happen.
>From previous professional experiences, there is no entity able to survive very long with its ressources inversely affected to its customer segments. 90% volume getting 10% of dev, and 10% volume getting 90% of dev is not sustainable in the long run.
Sorry for the WoT, but having some experience about those kind of trials, I cannot stay silent.
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the bisq-github