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

[pazza]

> Even if the secondary timelocks are implemented, i find that giving a cost for opening arbitration is still necessary.

I disagree with this. I think it should be met by all traders in the trade fees.

Consider this in your proposal. I have a trade that goes wrong. Mediator makes a suggestion that I do not think is fair, or fails to take in to consideration my loses. I can now either accept the mediation I am unhappy with or risk going to arbitration where their will be an additional cost to pay. 

> The main flaw of this proposal was to think that traders are getting a reward too high when it's a percentage of the deposit, so it's relative to trade amount.

Yes, I agree with this.

I also think the issue was created by the DAO themselves when they limited the amount of BTC the refund agent could send as compensation.

Good to see their is discussion in new issues about how to address the underlying problem of burningman / too many trades going to arbitration.

-- 
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-772945255
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bisq.network/pipermail/bisq-github/attachments/20210203/11c0a3a1/attachment.htm>