[bisq-network/proposals] Trading protocol change: release of funds in 2of2 multisig to be signed by seller in first place. (#224)

chimp1984 notifications at github.com
Tue Jun 16 01:35:47 UTC 2020

>  it's unfair that only sellers can demand to be compensated for an unresponsive counterpart.

What do you mean with that? If the seller is not responding he should lose his security deposit and the buyer will receive that.

For fiat trades which are usually small the 15% might be too low. We might need some more complex formula. E.g. a min. sec. deposit or a higher % for low volume trades for sellers. Buyers should be increased anyway. But also here for low volume 30% might be still too low. If one trades 50 EUR a 15 EUR loss might be not high enough to motivate to fulfil the trade obligations.
Downside is that it becomes more complicate for users to understand how high the deposits is, thats why we simplified in the past. But thats a UX problem and solvable IMO.

Regarding optional setting of deposit:
I think this is now with the new trade protocol more problematic as most traders do not understand the context and are prone to make bad choices without being aware of the consequences which can be external to themselves (e.g. refund agent gets more cases, other trader loses time).
And yes, it is difficult to estimate the required deposit based on volatility risk for makers as they never know when the offer is taken and what the volatility will be then.

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...
URL: <http://lists.bisq.network/pipermail/bisq-github/attachments/20200615/eb0c1a86/attachment.html>

More information about the bisq-github mailing list