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

[pazza]

> @pazza83 We got quite some repeated cases where the seller does not respond, even with pretty high amounts. It is a bit of a open miracle why that is the case. It is pretty sure not caused by bugs, UX, new user not known that to do... but rather some unknown motivation or circumstances. There is plenty of time between the trade and the reimbursement request and any econimically thinking trader would finds its way to get in touch with the support.

It does seem strange, have people chased up historic lost funds in the past, or do they just never come back for them?

> For Bisq it carries also some risk from BSQ volatility and generally the fact that reimbursement requests should be an exception and not happen often. So that the DAO gets some reimbursement for the extra effort in arbitration and included risks seems justified to me.

Whilst I appreciate the reasoning of wanting to compensate the DAO, in my opinion it does not seem right to seek reimbursement due to the trade size being a larger amount, and when the additional efforts are as a result of something the DAO has created by limiting reimbursement / requiring request to DAO for compensation in BSQ.  

Something like DAO compensation, if applied, should apply across trades of all sizes rather than larger ones. If not it might act as a deterrent for traders to make larger trades amounts.

I made the previous comments here which you responded to https://github.com/bisq-network/proposals/issues/220#issuecomment-716985588

I think it would be good if the following where created:

- Create a policy for what happens to security deposits in the event of trade disputes make this available to traders and part of the trading protocol.

- Create a policy for what happens to fee reimbursements in the event of trade disputes make this available to traders and part of the trading protocol.

I do not think I fully understand the trade process once the trade goes to arbitration.

If funds are sent to the burning man to be converted to burned BSQ can't the DAO request the burning man to send BTC payment for some of the received funds to settle the trade. This would avoid the issue of BSQ volatility?

Could the DAO approve burning man to make payouts of > 0.5 BTC, with this type of authorization not being the norm this would mean less chance of error being made if the transaction is authorized separately?

On the issue of DAO compensation, I would be in favor of this if applied evenly across all trades. This compensation would be met by the trader who was at fault for the transaction.

In my own experience in mediation I have been offered 50% of the other parties security deposit and if they are not responsive arbitrator will payout 100%. Maybe in these circumstances arbitrator can pay as suggested to the affected party and the remaining can be given as DAO compensation?  I do think compensation should be limited to 15% of trade amount (or min security deposit).



-- 
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-753437146
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bisq.network/pipermail/bisq-github/attachments/20210101/cc0c76d7/attachment.htm>