I think it would be beneficial for Mostro users to have a security deposit to discourage certain types of scams, e.g. when a scammer says he has already sent the fiat but hasn’t. If there was a security deposit, when a dispute occurs and it is proven that he did not send it, he would lose his deposit, so he does not have incentives to attempt it again and lose money. However, without a deposit, he lose nothing if caught and can keep trying.
Proposal:
If an order enters into dispute, the loser loses his deposit and part of it is given to the counterparty, and another to the Mostro where the dispute was handled.
That the deposit not be charged if users fail to respond when the order is in waiting-buyer-invoice or waiting-payment status, because in some LATAM countries it happens that the power and/or internet connection goes out unexpectedly, and users cannot continue with an order even if they wanted to, so I don't think it's fair to lose the deposit if you are not at fault for not continuing.
To avoid discouraging new users who want to buy Sats and don’t have Sats, there should be a limit from which a deposit is required (I suggest 5 or 10 USD). Or that should be optional to use a deposit, so that the market regulates itself
Security deposit are hold invoices, if claimed, the winner of the dispute would be asked to provide an invoice for the amount owed to them in order to receive it.
I'm not sure if it would be better for Mostro instances to decide what % of deposit are required on the trades they host, or if it should be up to each user to decide what % to put in.
jgmontoya
commented
3 weeks ago
I think it would be beneficial for Mostro users to have a security deposit to discourage certain types of scams, e.g. when a scammer says he has already sent the fiat but hasn’t. If there was a security deposit, when a dispute occurs and it is proven that he did not send it, he would lose his deposit, so he does not have incentives to attempt it again and lose money. However, without a deposit, he lose nothing if caught and can keep trying.
Proposal:
If an order enters into dispute, the loser loses his deposit and part of it is given to the counterparty, and another to the Mostro where the dispute was handled.
That the deposit not be charged if users fail to respond when the order is in
waiting-buyer-invoiceorwaiting-paymentstatus, because in some LATAM countries it happens that the power and/or internet connection goes out unexpectedly, and users cannot continue with an order even if they wanted to, so I don't think it's fair to lose the deposit if you are not at fault for not continuing.To avoid discouraging new users who want to buy Sats and don’t have Sats, there should be a limit from which a deposit is required (I suggest 5 or 10 USD). Or that should be optional to use a deposit, so that the market regulates itself
Security deposit are hold invoices, if claimed, the winner of the dispute would be asked to provide an invoice for the amount owed to them in order to receive it.
I'm not sure if it would be better for Mostro instances to decide what % of deposit are required on the trades they host, or if it should be up to each user to decide what % to put in.