[bisq-network/proposals] Properly define trade limits (#264)

[pazza]

> Account limits are in place as protection against chargeback scams and as loss limitation for mediators and arbitrators in case they make a mistake and pay out to the wrong trader (that happened and they had to pay from their pocket for their mistake, which can be very expensive with a 2 BTC trade).

Thanks for explaining your point of view. I thought that was the reason for account limits. In the definitions of the accounts limits I referenced it does not make this clear. Perhaps if this consensus is shared it could be added.  


> Bisq's first priority is security. If its not secure to trade on Bisq is has failed. Of course there is no 100% security but that is the priority number 1.
> Second priority is privacy. This is Bisq's value proposition and what makes it different to other exchanges.
> Next priorities are usability and liquidity. If nobody uses Bisq because its too hard to use or too low liqidity we have failed as well.

Thanks. I agree with Security and Privacy being 1 and 2. 
You don't mention immediacy. 
I do not think being able to trade immediately should have a bearing on account limits. I would be happy to sacrifice immediacy to maintain more security and privacy. Being able to trade immediately is currently a reason given for choosing account limits size. Perhaps this could be removed? I think speed of trade fits more into accessibility and usability of Bisq. Both of these are important to Bisq and should be taken into account when choosing account limits. But both are less important than security and privacy. 

> I think the answers to above questions can be derived from those priorities. I guess there might be different shades as all those main priorities overlap and have their trade-offs. With being too extreme on security we will lose users and liquidity, so we have to find the right balance. The discussion in that proposal is an attempt to re-balance.

So liquidity is important too :) Perhaps this can also be added to a definition of reasons for account limits.  I agree there is a trade-off to be made. 
 
> Account age signing was added after we had a serious SEPA chargeback scam. The account age limits turned out to be not enough protection so we needed to improve security. This is also the reason why we have to be very careful when "tuning" this feature. 

I really like the account signing / aging feature. I would sacrifice immediacy for more security.

My observations are that all the current popular fiat payment methods based on data from Keybase's bisq#growth-alerts channel are:

1. Zelle (requires signing)
2. Revolut (requires signing)
3. SEPA (requires signing)
4. National Banks (requires signing)
5. Faster Payments (does not require signing)

*would be interesting to see data from a full year. Not sure is this has been published anywhere?

I think the account signing feature provides a positive appearance to Bisq traders. When I have used Bisq to purchase BTC the following is true:

- I look for accounts to buy from that have been signed and are aged
- I avoid buying from accounts that have not been signed are new
- I avoid buying using payment methods that have no signing method

As a UK based user this means I mostly avoid the GBP market (faster payments) and buy on the EUR market (SEPA). 

I would be a proponent on making all fiat accounts have a signing mechanism. I think this would increase buyer confidence. 

> I think the main values of Bisq are well documented and we intentionally wanted to keep them minimal. The flavours how they develop is the result of the people working on Bisq and shaping it. As it is an open project the outcome is open as well.

Thanks can you point me to where these are well documented? I had trouble finding clearly defined vision and values.  

How you get where your going, what methods you use to get there will change a lot, but should your vision and what you believe in should be clearly defined from the outset?


-- 
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/264#issuecomment-719141219
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bisq.network/pipermail/bisq-github/attachments/20201029/94688c51/attachment-0001.html>