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

[chimp1984]

A few comments:

- Yes the option character is important to take into account. See also Bitmex blog post about Bisq: https://blog.bitmex.com/atomic-swaps-and-distributed-exchanges-the-inadvertent-call-option/
"Although it may make marketing the platform more challenging, it might make Bisq more robust to rebrand these trades as options and encourage sellers of Bitcoin to set the deposit price such that it’s consistent with the premium payment for the equivalent option based on the price volatility of the assets involved"

- Any refund agent case causes cost/risk for the refund agent not only for the trader. Giving the trader the option to set the deposit might not solve our problem if the trader does not care so much about the delay (or more likely that he does not understand the full context).

- The buyer is the one who can "cancel" the trade. So I don't see the need to increase the sellers deposit as well. Though we could increase the min. deposit for sellers so for small amount trades where the seller just don't care to confirm get covered as well. 

- We should consider the trade off between complexity and locked up funds. Using a more sophisticated model (as we used for the fees in the past) makes it difficult to understand for users but could optimize the required deposit. Maybe it would be a good start to do a more detailed analysis of the refund agent cases of the past 3 months to see which payment methods, trade amounts, trader role (buyer/seller) are causing the cases. I assume its 80-90% high amount trades (XMR) with buyer doing a future trade. So maybe it would be even enough to limit the increase to buyers on XMR markets with amounts > 0.1 BTC? If we have the data we could also justify it by showing that this market segment caused most problems.

- We should consider the "cancel trade" feature. It might be a relative easy solution for a "clean" way to step out.

- If a more sophisticates solution takes longer, lets make a quick change to solve the refund agent problem. The refund agent could revoke any day and then Bisq has a much bigger problem when each day 1-2 cases go to the DAO for reimbursement. It also would require some software changes (to get arbitration cases closed, to provide a proof for the DAO).

So as conclusion I really would suggest to make first an analysis of the data and try to find out which trades cause 90% of cases. Then implement an aggressive solution to bring those cases down to > 1%. If that is achieved we can fine tune and even if refund agent revokes there are not that many cases for DAO reimbursement to cause a major problem.
As said my bet is 90% are XMR trades over 0.1 BTC and buyer is not paying. 

-- 
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/proposals/issues/233#issuecomment-650840486
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bisq.network/pipermail/bisq-github/attachments/20200628/c95dcfac/attachment.html>