[bisq-network/proposals] Reduce by half the min and max BTC limits to adjust fiat BTC price increase. (#295)

[Conza]

> To stop having to go through the hassle of changing it, what about **removing the min security deposit** and keep the min 15% security deposit for all trades, even smaller ones?

I am for removing min security deposit **entirely.** With a warning perhaps that there is no security deposit, for someone _offering_ 0% (or make 1% default) that... and for someone _accepting_ that... with the option they can disable that popup message. 

The economics (value free analysis) are pretty clear cut—any minimum excludes those from entering the market. You will continually have to re-adjust as price rises.

Just like minimum wage laws e.g. $15per hour, make it illegal to hire anyone below that amount (FORCED UNEMPLOYMENT) and net loss of jobs that otherwise would have been created, it hurts and harms the poorest and least skilled in society (the exact people it was meant to help). Unions also love it, because it reduces labor competition (younger less skilled folk entering the market, increasing supply of labor). 

Why not try freedom? Two individuals agreeing to the terms?

In conjunction with this, also think should be able to change security deposit % for maker, and taker. e.g. as a BTC Buyer, I'd have no problem putting 100% security deposit to signal I am trustworthy... come sell me BTC. As a seller, I'd be inclined to use those who have higher security deposit for them, and less for me. 

Again, should be adjustable to those setting the 'contract' for trade. And warnings / education provided clearly about what effects things have e.g. security deposit is important because... 

-- 
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/295#issuecomment-782377173
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bisq.network/pipermail/bisq-github/attachments/20210219/a8ed51fe/attachment.htm>