[bisq-network/bisq] Add SWIFT (int. wire transfer) as payment method (#1789)

[pazza]

Hi just picking this up from #4757 

It seems that the principle of adding SWIFT is something that has been decided upon but not yet implemented. 

Just commenting on @dav1dpgit's excellent analysis and points with the aim to reach a consensus.

Everything looks good to me barring the potential concern I have with regards potential charge back risk introduced with the 'Stop and recall' system introduced fairly recently (see below for more info). It would be great to know if these concerns can be allayed or mitigated by anyone that has knowledge / percipience of this.

> We should add international wire transfers (SWIFT) into the payment options.
> Some responses to all of the above:
> “Banking fees are rather high (50-100 USD) which makes that very expensive if used with low trade limits (about 400 USD atm for new accounts).”
> [DP] Banking fees are $20-30USD, and are reduced for those who have balances in the bank. Those with low trade limits should look to either aggregate with the same counterparty or not trade using this methodology, but it should not be a reason not to have the payment option.

`Agreed`

> Fees are not clearly determined and receiver will also get charged by a fee. Furthermore some banks allow to define the fee model. There are 3 options: 'Sender pays', 'receiver pays' or fee is 'shared'. I think default is shared but users who manage to set that to 'receiver pay fee' can save much money on cost of the peer.
> [DP] Fees are clearly determined. The sending party should know their own wire transfer fees, and the receiving party should know their own wire transfer fees.

`Agreed to some extent. Some banks add in a fee + any bank intermediary fees (these can be unknown), however I do not think this is a reason not to add this payment method. Unknowns can be reflected in the asking price. `

> It seems that the receivers address is required which adds some privacy and security risks to the traders. But not sure if the address is verified. Many users change real address when moving house and do not update address at bank (often the bank webpage does not support that anyway).
> [DP] Receivers’ addresses are not required, only the bank address.

`Agreed`

> Transfer takes 3-5 working days but can take even longer
> [DP] Sometimes it takes only 1 working day, too. The majority of wires are 1-3 days. If it takes longer usually something is incorrect in the sending instructions.

`Agreed`

> It is not very clear to me how to find out if an intermediary bank is needed. I assume the banks figure it out themself and add on demand intermediary banks (and increase total fees by that) or it need to be defined by the users, but that will prob. not work as you don't know in advance the combination of the sellers and buyers banks.
> [DP] Some banks require intermediary banks, and state so on their website. If this is a requirement we can simply build this into the payment option instructions.

`Agreed`

> If the bank cannot complete the transfer more undfined costs may apply to the sender.
> [DP] If a bank cannot complete the transfer it is due to payment instructions being incorrect (likely). This is a case for mediation and not a reason to prevent the option from being available.

`Agreed`

> So all in all it seems like a can of worms and thats why we never added it but I am still wondering if we should offer it and make it very clear to the user which risks and issues are connected to it. There are countries with no Bisq market developed yet and that payment method could help to connect those isolated users to trade between them. Also in such countries they pay a huge premium anyway on LBTC or other exchanges, so the high fees might be not an issue for them. It could also help to bootstrap a national tranfer market once there are a few traders using Bisq there.
> [DP] Agreed. “Can of Worms” is applicable to this and any transfer methodology.

`Agreed, SWIFT will open up more international markets. Anyone in any country could trade with any currency as long as they had an account that could send / receive SWIFT payments.`

> I think chargeback risk is very low, so that is a good part.
> We would need to use a high trade limit otherwise the costs are way too high (25% of the trade if the costs are 100 USD for a 400 USD tx). We could allow 0.25 BTC for new accounts (about 1600 USD) then the 100 USD fee would be "only" 6%. Once the account has 2 months then its 1 BTC and then the fee with 1.5% is actaully pretty reasonable.
> [DP] I am fine with high trade limits. Higher the better.

```
Agreed, the highest payment method on Bisq currently is Advanced Cash with a 2 BTC limit.
I would propose account aging could be used with this as the limit:
0.5 BTC - Account age <30 days: trade limit is 25% of the maximum 
1 BTC - Account age 30-60 days: trade limit is 50% of the maximum
2 BTC - Account age >60 days: trade limit is 100% of the maximum
```


> Another problem is how to deal with the fee mode. There is an incentive that the sender tries to let the receiver pay the fee if his bank offers that option. So maybe the best would be that we use that as the default case. The extra costs for the fee for the Fiat receiver can be priced in the offer price. There can be though then cases where the sender cannot select that and then the seller has the disadvantage.
> [DP] Even if some banks allow for receivers to pay fees, the general SWIFT use case is the sending bank charges $20-30USD, and the receiving bank also takes a $10USD cut, sometimes. Just let each bank’s fees are borne by the bank account holder as the default (Senders and receivers anticipate their own banks’ fees.) If the sender wants to transfer all of the SWIFT fees to the other side via the wire process, explicitly say this is not standard and open to rejection of the SWIFT wire.

`Agreed, choosing the default fee split method is most simple. Both users will be aware of any fees. The most important thing that the fee split is defined in the trade protocol. This can be clearly defined as slit fees. If the buyer of BTC passes all fees to seller this can be settled in mediation. Hopefully this wouldn't happen much as Bisq client / website etc would make it clear that fees are to be split.`

> Arbitration with the fee issues migth become an issue. But I think if we use the model that the reciver pays all fees and communicate it clearly that fees are not determined it should be ok. User has to be aware of an extra risk factor here.
> [DP] Disagree on this point. Please see my prior process flow comment.

`Agreed`

> A sender who pays more fee because his bank does not allow selection of the model or is instranparent with fees has to complain at his bank.
> [DP] Yes

`Agreed`


> ## **Considerations**
> * Domestic wires have separate bank identifiers (e.g. internal to the United States = ABA number; internal to AU = BSB), so to bypass this issue we should require the SWIFT wire option in BISQ to be INTERNATIONAL SWIFT payments only.

`Agreed` 

> * This is information of the recipient to be entered by the BTC buyer/fiat sender when executing a trade settled by International SWIFT.

`Thanks from my experience making SWIFT payments that all looks great. `

> * SWIFT can be any major currency.  Currency is established in the BISQ trade, but we should make the settlement be specific to a currency, so for now we set up the BISQ account to be currency-specific.

```
Agree that settlement should match market that trade was take on. 
I disagree that SWIFT needs to be set up to be currency specific? 
We could add SWIFT as a multi-currency payment method. 
Select the currency you want to trade with. Same way that Revolut is.
That way a user can make / take multiple SWIFT offers on multiple markets. 
Let me know if I have misunderstood.

```
 

> * The BISQ naming method will be International_SWIFT_Wire_Transfer_XXX where XXX is the three-letter currency to be used.

```
I am not sure what this refers to. If in the account section when adding a new account I think it should be:
SWIFT (International Wire Transfer)
```

>   **Why would Bisq benefit from adding this payment method? Is is popular in a particular region? More convenient? More safe?**
>   BISQ benefits by having a cross-border payment methodology that allows for larger flows to happen and attracts more market makers.  Most centralized exchanges accept SWIFT wires in and out; it is a standard method for settlement.  Connects remote trading regions, a strength of BISQ.

`Agreed`

>   **Who can use this payment method?**
>   Anyone with a bank that permits account holders to make international transfers are able to use this payment method.  Currently there are over 11,000 banks using this in 200 countries.

`That is a lot of potential users 👍 
`
>   **How easy is it to cancel a payment once it's made? This is the most important characteristic of a payment method.**
>   Chargeback is very difficult and requires bank employees to mediate and requires evidence of fraud.

`Thanks, I understood chargeback risk to be low. On looking at the SWIFT website however the stop and recall service does not sound good for Bisq. It allows a user to immediately stop a payment, in case of fraud or error. It would be good to know anyone's knowledge / experience of this.`

`Website info:` https://www.swift.com/stop-and-recall-payment-service 
`Stop and recall and SWIFT GPI documentation:` https://gofile.io/d/VV5VKy

>   **What information must a user provide to a counterparty to accept a payment?**
>   Please see below

`Thanks all looks great. `

>   **How can payments be verified? Examples: TLSNotary is typically used for electronic payments, and receipt scans are typically used for money orders.**
>   Payments are verified when the cash arrives in the recipients account

`Thanks`

>   **How long do payments take? Please provide a range, as the advertised best-case scenario rarely accounts for edge cases.**
>   1-3 days is standard and my own familiarity, but can be up to 5-7 days depending on the banks involved

`Thanks, I would suggest a 7 day trading window. Some people might need to take the trade and then arrange to visit branch. Not all bank offers online SWIFT and those that do can have limits less than in branch. Additionally not all users will be familiar with SWIFT and may choose to go to branch to ensure all details are correctly entered.`


>   **Does it cost anything to make a transfer using this payment method? If so, how much?**
>   Yes, the sending party will incur a fee as described in their agreement with the bank.  Receiving party may also incur a (usually smaller) fee, as described in their agreement with their own bank.  These are clear from the outset and usually non-transferrable.  Anecdotal information mentioned an option for a sender to pass SWIFT wire fees to the recipient; in those situations the receiving party will not have received the full amount and we should make it clear that is not an option within BISQ. Fees range from USD$40-$100(Anecdotal), USD$25-30 (own experience) and all the way to $0 for certain accounts.

`Agreed
`

>   **How easy or difficult is fraud with this payment method?**
> Very difficult to send funds one does not have.

```
Please see above info about Stop and Recall that has raised my concerns. 
If chargeback risk can be agreed to be low I think it would be great to get SWIFT added.
```




-- 
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/bisq/issues/1789#issuecomment-723415727
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bisq.network/pipermail/bisq-github/attachments/20201107/1f8e4a61/attachment-0001.html>