[bisq-network/support] Dispute mediator/arbitrator payout on trade WTZETDH (#486)

[Bisq-knight]

I believe we need to take a step back and look at this as a failure in our communication process.

The refund agent does not have access to the history of chats with mediator and has to rely on what I share with him (a summary of our chat).

I shared this:
```
sending your way a small but tricky case:
`WTZETDH`

the buyer started replying and then suddenly stopped. Now the seller got very motivated and wants to conclude the trade. 

The buyer's claim is that Zelle prevented him from sending the money. Then the Seller asked to get part of his deposit. When I tried to get a middle ground, the buyer stopped replying
 ```

some facts about this trade:
* fiat payment was not made (no evidence was produced, nor receipt was confirmed)
* traders did not come to an agreement on whether or not to cancel the trade and to what exact payout (they were haggling as who should get how much of each other's deposit
* the trade did not go to arbitration automatically with the timelock (Seller had to manually broadcast the transaction through, which causes the case to arrive at the refund agent with information from only one side)

## Did the buyer violate the trade protocol?
* if we take his claim seriously, no. Because bank blocking the trade is not a violation of the trade protocol. Not sending the money is. But we have no way to verify that, especially if he stops replying (this in itself is a violation of the protocol) -> Simple cancellation would be the desired desired
* if we only look at facts and ignore claims, yes. He did not send the fiat payment -> penalty to the Buyer is the desired outcome 

## current situation, looking only at the facts (Buyer did violate the protocol)
* Buyer got his deposit back. If he violated the trade protocol, he got away with it. We need to focus on preventing this
* Seller didn't get compensation for his time and troubles off the Buyer's deposit. He is the one who hurt in this

## proposed solution
1 - Buyer getting away with violation -> we keep an eye out for his Tor address and be extra careful whenever he shows up again in the dispute process. But there's not a lot we can do for that apart from the above AND following the standard @leo816 is formalizing for cases of unresponsiveness
2 - DAO should not pay for this. This proposal should be rejected
3 - Refund agent already puts his Bitcoin on the line to make the process work. He should not have more layers of risk added to his role. 
4 - I as the Mediator of this trade will pick up the tab and pay him the requested BSQ. As it was my responsibility to uncover the facts of the trade within the timelock period. All necessary facts were not uncovered (97.53 BSQ + 2 BSQ of issuing the proposal)

I pay him out of my pocket as it was my responsibility to arrive or uncover  a suggestion for the refund agent. Without such suggestion he took the safe choice (with least damage to both parties) of a simple cancellation with each trader getting their deposits back.

# next steps (of my suggestion)
* Upon DAO rejection, @ncstdc  should post a BSQ address in this thread
* I will transfer the agreed amount (99.53 BSQ) and post the transaction ID here
* @ncstdc will write a receipt message and sign it using keybase's `@dchoe` (as he has verified the account who initiated this thread and has also verified that it is trader from the above mentioned trade)
* I will post this signed message on this thread for reference and cryptographic proof



-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/bisq-network/support/issues/486#issuecomment-680284211
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bisq.network/pipermail/bisq-github/attachments/20200825/832ab92f/attachment-0001.html>