[bisq-network/support] Reimbursement and compensation for trade CCfg0KQ (#684)

[spx4000]

Issuing BSQ at 4202 sats is financially reckless for the DAO when the 30 day average is now 6209 sats.

Why use a far below market rate and give the user the choice of keeping the BSQ or selling to the burning man?

Akira45-0 is getting the .3 BTC security deposit, due to the delay in settlement, this seems to be a fair outcome.

@chimp1984 suggests that it is too much, and maybe the security deposits from failed trades should be shared by the trader and the DAO in some way.  I think @chimp1984 linked a discussion.

If the DAO continues with this reckless policy, it can easily become an attack vector.  I trade with myself,  I don't complete the trade, I go to the DAO and ask for BSQ reimbursement at a below market rate, I go sell all this BSQ at the market rate.


Akira45-0 has no reason to sell this 60,000 BSQ back to the burning man at 4202 when there are bids of almost 5000 sats in the order book and the current last trade price is 10,000 sats.

This will be a very expensive lesson for the DAO.

If you issued 26,000 BSQ at, for example, 10,000+ sats, and the burning man and Akira45-0 arranged to trade as occurred in the past, there is less risk to the DAO.  There would be risk to Akira45-0 that the burning man doesn't have the funds, or decides not to trade with Akira45-0. 



-- 
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/support/issues/684#issuecomment-770889029
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bisq.network/pipermail/bisq-github/attachments/20210201/1627e616/attachment-0001.htm>