[bisq-network/proposals] Reduce maximum trade size for unsigned payment accounts (#322)

[Conza]

(1) There was talk on various forums/places about accounts not being signed (when they should have, and was a bug). Has that been addressed at all? 

(2) This is going to kick the can down the road ONCE AGAIN. Why is it not possible to mark it as a fixed % of current BTC price in fiat terms? 

(3) I am principally for _**no**_ minimum security deposits at all (once signed), and **_no_** maximum limit either (once signed). 
As part of that I would be clearly AF communicating to users who may be taking particular offers that don't have any security deposit, the risks etc. and consequences.. and getting them to confirm acceptance.

It's a voluntary contract between two people, and Bisq is the protocol. 

(4) I am also for allowing DIFFERENT security deposit %'s to be set for MAKER and for TAKER... 
Again, an education piece with good UX about what each means.
Then truly, if A AND B WANT TO TRADE VOLUNTAIRLY, why get in the way? 


-- 
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/322#issuecomment-800135476
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bisq.network/pipermail/bisq-github/attachments/20210316/be6e6192/attachment.htm>