[bisq-network/support] Reimbursement for trade cjtlq-550943f1-9702-4b7b-a480-31d4d085e4b5-172 (Issue #1027)

[pazza]

Comments from Keybase user: hippydippy (posted on their behalf as no Github account)

> I'm new to Bisq (my first signed trade happily concluded this week) and I was checking the support channel for help with how to reduce data usage, when I saw this case. 
> 
> And I’m commenting as this situation is really alarming: SEPA trades are the highest volume trading method on Bisq and IMHO the current handling of this case represents flaw with SEPA as a Bisq payment method, and as a SEPA user, the outcome here doesn’t seem good enough and further intervention from the DAO seems necessary. 
> 
> Without seeing the proofs of each party, and from my outsider perspective, it seems likely that either A) the Buyer didn’t pay and duped the arbitrator, or B) Payment was lost between Buyer’s bank and Seller’s bank which, as previously pointed out, seems unlikely given the solidity of the SEPA system. However the SEPA document (linked by @pazza  in the Github link below) says "The cause for this claim can be at the Originator Bank, the Beneficiary Bank and/or in the clearing and settlement layer” which implies that transaction failure is indeed possible, if only extremely rare. For this reason it’s clear that for trades using SEPA the current arbitration procedure, regardless of the case in question, does not adequately cater for this possibility and needs transparent guidance to deter scummy scammers. 
> 
> I’d like to see the DAO make this situation right because, if: 
> 
> Scenario A) Buyer has not paid - this creates motivation for someone considering using Bisq for scamming, that they could simply not pay their SEPA, provide arbitrator with what must be doctored proofs, and be awarded the trade amount. Which is obviously a catastrophic situation for the integrity of the platform. 
> 
> Or if Scenario B) Bank lost payment - it’s clear the mediation / arbitration process has not adequately investigated the Seller’s assertion that they have not received payment by requesting the Buyer open an enquiry with their originator bank which, as defined by SEPA protocol in Pazza’s linked document, is the correct means of inquiry. 
> 
> I see comment above that "I don't think that with the info that the DAO has now it will be enough to accept your proposal” but this is nonsensical given Pazza’s doc. The SCT inquiry should have been requested, which is a failing of the process so the Seller has a case for compensation from the DAO if for no other reason than the arbitrator did not require Buyer to do this inquiry proof. Am assuming the DAO has no ability to request this proof now as the trade is closed and the Buyer has their BTC, in which case IMHO the Seller should be refunded at least half the trade. Probs 100% given all the hair-pulling they’ve endured.  
> 
> I also see a comment above that there has been "very little discussion about your issue” (presumably DAO discussion?) which seems negligent, and really concerning for me as SEPA user, as IMHO the integrity of the platform is the real issue here, beyond the trade in question. 
> 
> To preserve the integrity of Bisq, it seems essential that Bisq DAO establishes in the dispute resolution guidance for SEPA transaction disputes that this SCT inquiry, the actual method of enquiry defined by SEPA itself, be required as final resolution measure. As this will deter potential scammers who are emboldened by the current situation of this case - regardless of how the actual failing happened, a scammer sees this as a potential point of failure. As it stands, the fact that the proof wasn’t requested by the arbitrator is a disincentive to honest peeps using SEPA with Bisq. 
> 
> Pazza’s SEPA doc outlines how both banks must provide each other (the banks) with un altered transaction data relating to the inquiry, which is presumably data their customers have a legal right to access. Both Buyer and Seller should be required to provide whatever responses their banks provide to the arbitrator. No doubt different banks will communicate their response in different format / media but ideally the arbitrator, at their discretion, should be able to request disputing parties screen-share emails / internet banking login / or video call as necessary to review these comms. I can imagine a scenario doing all this over the phone with my bank results in me not actually having any response in writing, so it should be the responsibility of traders to request a response in writing from the bank. All SEPA banks must have at minimum a complaints email channel for customers to request written response. And, as a last resort, if trader is required to click around in their email / internet banking / phone texts, with the arbitrator watching in real time, well that’s pretty much impossible to fake. 
> 
> While this might all take a while (fuck the banks) it would provide arbitrator an accurate picture of what’s gone wrong with the trade. More importantly some public guidance from Bisq that this is how things will be resolved should deter scammers.  
> 
> If the bank communications establish that a payment is really lost and neither bank, nor clearing house, accepts liability for the loss, then the decision should probably be split equally between both parties as both traders are mutually accepting risk in using the SEPA payment method in the first instance. According to the SEPA doc one of the banks may charge the other bank a fee for SCT inquiry (fuck banks) and these kinds of fees should be split equally between both buyer and seller should they occur. 
> 
> The DAO should offer the Seller compensation here as, IMHO, the Seller is right - the arbitration process in this case does not see to have been sufficiently fair to them. Their arbitrator should have seen that further action was required and not just left the Seller hanging, empty handed. And in my experience with different banking methods is that if TFR’s are mischanneld they eventually bounce back to the sender, so in light of the SCT inquiry not yet being established as common practice, at least transparently for users, the Seller should really get a full refund. 
> 
> I’m probably going to hold off on further SEPA trades until the DAO makes a decision here. How does someone follow along this decision are they published somewhere? @bisquser1465  can you reply here with the outcome, please? Also don’t shoot the messenger brah but people might be more inclined to help you without all the swear words and put-downs. Just saying. Good luck! 


-- 
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/support/issues/1027#issuecomment-972472177
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bisq.network/pipermail/bisq-github/attachments/20211117/7fb86739/attachment-0001.htm>