[bisq-network/proposals] Monero Bisq User Research Project (Issue #349)

[chimp1984]

@UX-P 
Great thanks for your update!

I think it might be helpful to create some sort of FAQ-like repsonse to some of the circulating critizisms (maybe on the webpage)  as some of the postings are very distorting and causing ongoing damage to Bisqs reputation if not corrected/countered/brought into context.

Here my 5 cents to some I stumbled over from time to time:
- BTC fees ar super high: Yes at some moments they have been high, but > 90% of the time its not an issue. Provide  [charts](https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin-transactionfees.html#3y) of average BTC fees to show that the times when fees become critically high are rather short periods. Also bring it in context to volatility (e.g. price moves have mostly much more effect on costs of a trade). 
- Bisq fees are high (not often seen though): Just show real trade fees and compare to other CEX/DEX. Make clear that total fee is trade fee+miner fee. Also mention BSQ for lower fees and make clear why BSQ is important to Bisqs mission. Make clear that security deposit is not part of the fees (some seem to confuse that).
- UX/complexity: As shown in your mindmap similar critizism Bisq experience happens also to the Monero GUI wallet, which is pretty good IMO. I think same complaints comes to Bitcoin core. I think people need to understand that convenience comes with some price. So far nobody has found the perfect solution to provide the values we are based on (privacy, censorship resistence, self costody) and the most convenient UX as usually offered by centralized platforms. But sure we should improve here.
- DAO is unnecessary: Show why the DAO is important for censorship resistence with links to existing docs
- Java is slow: Show benchmarks  Java compared to C++. Naked performance is not the main factor. Code complexity is the main challenge with apps like Bisq. Many recent improvements have shown that there is lot of headroom. But sure we should improve here. 
- UI is slow: Same as above. Its not JavaFX, its because of complex code not optimized. Lots of headroom for improvement.
- UX is confusing: users who are used to CEX might be more confused as they come with some expectations which are not fulfilled due the different concepts of a P2P DEX. Sure there are lot of headroom for improvements, but a Uniswap like DEX will likely not be possible with Bisqs concepts and values (most of those ETH based DEX are not very decentralized, as easily shown when they get shut down by regulators, and ETH itself has much lower level of decentralisation due many issues like Infura, ETH foundation, hardforks,...). 
- Bisq has no liquidity: The main markets (USD, EUR, XMR) have sufficient liquidity. Other markets though still suffer from low liquidity, but if everyone just complains about that and not use Bisq to lower the problem it will not go away from itself. Liquidity is created by the users and its in their hands. 
- You need BTC to trade XMR: Yes, but the costs to do Haveno-like XMR-fiat trade is very high due the technical smart contract limitations of XMR (no chained txs, long confirmation time before you can spend from a tx, no timelocks). We probably should not waste energy by confronting the Haveno concept, but it would be good to make clear that its not a free lunch, and future will show if users are willing to pay the extra costs on UX when using Haveno. Beside that it comes with lower censorship properties (as 3rd party is involved in the trade). Also its a bit contradictionary to use XMR for best privacy but then want to do a fiat (bank based) trade, which comes with the biggest privacy risks. Its probably other groups of XMR users and some XMR maximalism/tribalism might be another reason. I guess against those tendencies we cannot do anything anyway.
- Atomic cross chain swaps are the solution to all: Its cool tech but costs for running the infrastructure (full XMR node, full BTC node, swap infrastructure) are a considerable issue, specially for those users who complain already about Bisq or Monero GUI wallet. Also confirmation time is a limiting factor (same as in Bisq) and it will not be able to compete UX/convenience wise with a CEX. And there seem to be some minor security issues (not sure if they are fully solved/solveable - its not about stealing funds but wasting the peers time and liquidity by not cooperating and need to wait for the refunds). Beside that its totally new tech and comes with risks for bugs/unknown security flaws and if funds are lost due of bugs it is probably much harder to get them unlocked. Make clear Atomic cross chain swaps are clearly on the Bisq 2.0 roadmap, but expectations should be confronted with the reality. Its also still heavily in development and not yet ready to get implemented. Here is a good overview: https://www.monerooutreach.org/stories/monero-atomic-swaps.html




-- 
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/349#issuecomment-990098735
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bisq.network/pipermail/bisq-github/attachments/20211209/2c9ea293/attachment-0001.htm>