[bisq-network/proposals] Cap max reimbursement from peers security deposit (#292)

[spx4000]

I agree that the 15% isn't necessarily excessive and setting security deposits is the choice of the maker, so you deserve the full deposit.  Though that policy should be discussed going forward.

It's incredibly disingenuous to claim that your losses are from not being able to short BTC at 40k or to short XMR at .0067, I mean, sure you could have gone to Bitmex and used 100x leverage and think you lost 200BTC.

Borrowing rates for BTC using BTC as collateral is generally 6-12% annually, and you will be getting paid 15% for around 2 months?  And you have some credit risk to the DAO but this known before you enter a trade.

I claim nothing malicious about your arbitration exploit.  Nobody knowing what the future price of BSQ doesn't mean you aren't getting a free option on BSQ at the expense of the DAO.

 @chimp1984 's idea of going back to the old way seems even worse as now you are making the person getting reimbursed sell a put on the BSQ price.  The BSQ market just isn't liquid enough to support these flows.  The person getting reimbursement  just wants their money back after the cycle ends, no more, no less. 

Let's remove the free call, and also not saddle them with a giving the DAO a free put.

Pazza83 makes one of the best suggestions so far, with just issuing 1 BSQ and that can be redeemed by the person proving they are @Akira45-0 .  Issues would be that trade messing with the BSQ average price, as well as some incentives for users to fake being @Akira45-0 (in this specific case) .

-- 
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/292#issuecomment-771709157
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bisq.network/pipermail/bisq-github/attachments/20210202/0e515279/attachment.htm>