Should we require suppliers to stake a deposit?

[deweller]

Staked deposits by the suppliers would accomplish:

1. Pays for dispute resolution if needed
2. Pays for a successful violation report
3. Incentivizes suppliers to finalize the job and not wait for the default timeout. Suppliers could lose their stake if not paid out on time.

Amount could be a fixed amount ($50) or a percentage (6%) whichever is greater.

[indeavr]

I think this is something we want to add. MIN_SUPPLIER_STAKE = 50$ SUPPLIER_STAKE_PERCENT = 6%

This would resolve #79 and also give us flexibility.

[deweller]

The more I consider this, the more I think this is necessary. There are other abuses of the platform we can mitigate by having a stake.

For example, if an address floods the Firebase or IPFS API, we can cite a ToS violation and punish the attacker by claiming the deposit.

[deweller]

See #105

[deweller]

It would be helpful for someone to map out the minimum dollar amounts that every party would get paid in the case of reporting and dispute resolution.

[deweller]

The biggest reason to require a stake for the supplier is that without it, there is no incentive for a supplier to award payment for the contract. They can simply let the contract expire and force the engineer to submit the timeout transaction themselves.

If we require a supplier deposit, it incentivizes the supplier to accept in a timely fashion. If they do not, the engineer can receive the supplier stake as compensation for the supplier being non-responsive.

[reisr3]

IMO - we should not do this for MVP. We should just minimum amounts.

Instead, I'd propose we ask our users after launch what they want. I think a huge thing will be supporting other ERC20 tokens.

[reisr3]

Not necessary for MVP, removing tag.