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

[MwithM]

@pazza83 said:
> I agree it seems high. Life happens; computers can be stolen / break. People get sick / die / arrested. Lots of things can legitimately go wrong that do not warrant a loss of 0.3 BTC on a 2 BTC trade.

Computer stolen or break can be recovered with the seed. That happens from time to time. Death and sickness related losses can happen using BTC. That's part of the risk people is taking when using BTC and not having an inheritance plan. Bisq being so similar to BTC can't help much to solve this.

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

No, they've never came back. 

> I think maximum someone should lose for being unresponsive is 7.5% of trade amount (50% of min deposit). This would still be high 0.15 BTC but more palatable for the unresponsive party and still profitable for the seller. This is also what would likely be proposed in mediation.

Mediation should not offer the same deal as arbitration. That could make all trades go to arbitration. 
What do you suggest we do with the 50% extra amount? Send it back to the unresponsive party? I could agree with it when security deposit is over 20% (this high security deposit are used mostly to prevent future trading). 20% of trade amount might be enough to compensate the trader who has to go through arbitration.

> 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.

Agree. I don't see a reason why we should differentiate between high and low trading volumes. They both set the same security deposit %.

@chimp1984 
> In case of a 2 BTC trade that is 0.3 BTC and with currently high BTC price about 8800 USD which seems way too high.

29600 USD trades which are locked for at least a week (probably at least 2 weeks) are rewarded with 8880USD. The buyer also has 8880USD that could be lost if he was the unresponsive party.
Expressed that way, it doesn't seem that high. 

> I suggest to cap that amount to an BSQ equivalent of about 1000 USD.

Just like Bisq does not cap the amount of trading fees collected from high amount trades or reduces the amount for security deposits, Bisq should not cap the amount of awarded security deposit. If 2 BTC max trade amount is a risk, then this trade amount should be reduced.

> For Bisq it carries also some risk from BSQ volatility and generally the fact that reimbursment 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.

I also think Bisq should take some profit from arbitration, but not this way. Something like an arbitration fee of 3% of trading and security deposits amount if refund agent is the one who reimburses and a 5% DAO fee if the DAO does it would be the way to go. It would be used for all trades, not only high amounts. In case of bugs Bisq should not take any fee.
It would also fight the possibility about the refund agent creates fake offers just to get BSQ from compensation requests for reimbursing this trades. At least for trades over a certain amount.

-- 
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-753468213
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bisq.network/pipermail/bisq-github/attachments/20210102/fd7b6937/attachment-0001.htm>