[bisq-network/growth] Fix issue with lack of signed accounts for Moneybeam, Uphold and PopMoney (#212)

pazza notifications at github.com
Sat Nov 28 04:25:55 CET 2020


Just did a quick search and get results back of reverse charges pretty quickly.

It is hard to quantify extent of what the problem is. All you have to go on are random internet strangers being annoyed about the account closures, freezes and reverse charges.  

As you said previously I think care can be taken.

> I think we have to take care to not bootstrap a payment method which might not see scammers initially because its low liquidity and once its successfully adopted scammers come and ruin all what we have built up. You cannot trust a random anonynmous stranger who has nothing to lose if the scam gets detected.


---

**Some examples of chargeback risks**


Popmoney
User got funds refunded after scam on PopMoney https://www.reddit.com/r/Scams/comments/cpmluz/scammed_and_need_help/

Moneybeam
User had charge reversed https://www.reddit.com/r/number26bank/comments/cduiq2/dont_use_n26_their_customer_support_sucks/

Uphold
Regularly block accounts 
https://www.reddit.com/r/number26bank/comments/gicprg/help_via_moneybeam/

If you forget to send us the required information within14 days, we’ll reverse the transaction to the originating bank or debit/credit card. If you deposit from a crypto network, you’ll need to send us the destination address of your wallet.
https://uphold.com/en/blog/an-update-from-our-cco-on-transaction-monitoring 

---

With all the above platforms they are not only the intermediary between the buyer and seller, they also have access to both users accounts. I think Bisq should be especially careful with these payment methods that have an eye over all aspects of the trades.

Requests for more information about trades, accounts being closed, frozen, and funds being placed on hold are all more likely with these methods than when a users with bank A sends funds to a user with bank B.

I think signing has an important role to play for payment methods that are at risk of chargeback AND for payment methods where users have more chance of facing restrictions by the because they are trading within the payment methods ecosystem.

This is partially from my experience of having to deal with issues from both banks and payment providers. It is always easier to satisfy the banks than it is the payment providers (who know more about the user than I do). 

Eg Revolut asking me please tell me what more details about the payment to @chimp1984 is a harder question for me to answer than my bank asking asking please tell me more details about the payment your made John Doe from the UK.

I can tell the bank John Doe is arranging accommodation for me for the wedding I am attending next year, and they wouldn't know any different.

Revolut is more tricky. 

Therefore I think signing protects the traders from more than just the risk of chargeback. I would often rather lose my trade amount than my access to the payment provider.








-- 
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/growth/issues/212#issuecomment-735034169
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bisq.network/pipermail/bisq-github/attachments/20201127/7c108979/attachment.htm>


More information about the bisq-github mailing list