[bisq-network/bisq] Improve UI/UX for account aging column in 'Offers' section of GUI (#4735)

[m52go]

I realize the desire to clarify chargeback risk, but I'm not sure we should do that.

Classifying risk as "low" and "very low and "extremely low" seems ambiguous and perhaps even puts some liability on Bisq in the event a chargeback does occur ("well you said it was 'very low' but it still happened so...??").

This is the complexity I see in drawing conclusions about risk from signing status:
- Trading with a signed account simply makes it much more likely that you'll have a smooth experience. It might also make it much more _unlikely_ that you will have a bad experience, but that is a different claim, and (in my opinion) not a wise one to make.
- But not all payment methods require signing since some are inherently less risky than others. 
- With _that_ said, account signing is only applied to the most risky payment account types in the most active Bisq markets...so _risky_ account types in less active markets don't require signing even though they're still relatively risky.
- To twist things even further, there are also risky payment account types in active Bisq markets that don't require signing in order to bootstrap their liquidity (e.g. Australian PayID).

I suggest leaving out the chargeback assessments and just mentioning signing status.

Perceived safety may not be as clear in this way but I'm not sure if there is a way to accurately convey it without misrepresenting. People just need to understand what signing is, what it signifies, and why it's only applied to certain payment methods in certain markets.

-- 
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/4735#issuecomment-727178369
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bisq.network/pipermail/bisq-github/attachments/20201114/3faf054f/attachment-0001.html>