[bisq-network/proposals] Add negative score for protocol violations (#260)

[MwithM]

I would prefer not to have this measure implemented because it gives more power to mediators, is bad for privacy and only has a slight effect on fiat trades, but almost only on fiat BTC buyers (sellers don't have trading limits to be lifted). 

> 60-70% of the refund agent cases are protocol violations like buyer not paying (option trade) using incorrect bank details (account name not matching) or one of the traders is not responding. The increase of the security deposit did not had the intended effect and we cannot increase it further without causing collateral damage to the large group of honest traders.

2 years ago we had about 8% of disputes (all of them going to arbitration, as there was no mediation). https://github.com/bisq-network/proposals/issues/52#issuecomment-433663600 We have less than 1% of disputes going to arbitration. Of it, at least 30% are on the "no protocol violations" category. I think these are pretty good numbers. 
What security deposit increase are you referring to? A few cycles ago, there was the introduction of [security deposit suggestions](https://github.com/bisq-network/bisq/issues/4426), but no mandatory increase of security deposits. And I have doubts that people is being able to use suggested security deposits properly (at least [I can't](https://github.com/bisq-network/bisq/issues/4426)).
If you're referring to the increase from 5 to 15% or so, made about a year ago (I can't find the details) we can discuss if cases going to arbitration are too high or too low, but the trend in 2 years is quite good.
Currently, I think that keeping up with the points in this [project](https://github.com/bisq-network/projects/issues/39) is what should be done. Sellers can still omit mediator's suggestion, traders can't negoatiate mediator payouts (or at least this policy is not written on the wiki) and security deposit recommendation and payout guidelines for mediation and arbitration are still not clear to users. Autoconfirmation for XMR trades was introduced a week ago (and I'm not sure that this will solve unresponsive sellers, as it might be ultra privacy concerned users).

Let's talk about incentives, which is what Bisq should be relying mostly on, instead of reputation: 
In certain cases, it's hard to say that a protocol violation is affecting negatively to the other part. I probably would like to take lots of offers where I receive full amount of a +20% security deposit from an unresponsive seller, specially if I receive it in 13 days. If locktime and dispute resoltion time were reduced, unresponsive traders would be a bless for the "aggrieved" part.  
Also, if only the deposit tx funds equivalent are used for reimbursements, reimbursing traders won't have a cost for the Bisq DAO and it could even be profitable for the DAO in some cases, depending on what % of the protocol violator's security deposit is used to compensate the winning part of a dispute and what % of it goes to the refund agent or the equivalent role.

-- 
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/260#issuecomment-696229747
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bisq.network/pipermail/bisq-github/attachments/20200921/1e23a600/attachment.html>