[bisq-network/proposals] Proposal to increase trade deposit to 30% (#233)

m52go notifications at github.com
Sat Jun 27 14:04:55 UTC 2020

It seems there's general agreement that the protocol itself needs to be revisited, but since that is not the topic of this proposal, I will refrain from commenting on it here. But I hope it gets more attention soon.

As mentioned above, the rational result of doubling deposit is a drop in liquidity...if it takes twice as much capital to make an offer, people will make fewer offers. We've already seen how the _potential_ to tie capital for 10+ days has killed the XMR market—the key to DAO profitability. The more capital you require upfront and the longer you tie that capital up, the more you discourage trading.

With that said, we have to make the best of the situation we're in. It's probably not realistic to expect an improvement in the core trade protocol in the near-future, and the situation with the refund agent requires urgency.

To that end I'll second flix1's suggestion to make such an increase voluntary, and to make it more obvious in the interface (ideally: show deposit % in offer book AND highlight option to configure deposit % when making an offer). I actually suggested this over 2 months ago in a Keybase chat upon finding out that many users don't realize that configuring security deposit % for buyers is possible right now ([tweet](https://twitter.com/bisq_network/status/1250796885151035395)).

If deposits are going to be raised, these are the criteria (in my opinion):
- **voluntary**
- with clear messaging (offer book, make-offer screen, tool-tips, wiki links, etc)
  - make benefits clear
  - signal it's a test/temporary
  - user can choose lower deposit if they want
- applied to markets/trades which need it most (based on analysis of dispute cases)...is there are a Pareto scenario here?

Otherwise we take a big risk with liquidity, trading activity, and furthering Bisq's reputation as a mechanism that is ever-unfriendlier to active traders...all of which we really cannot do right now.

I'm only in favor of this move if the criteria above are met _and_ if the move is used as a stepping stone for implementing a refined/improved trade protocol as quickly as possible (i.e., top project priority).

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/20200627/e7ff6223/attachment.html>

More information about the bisq-github mailing list