I cannot edit an Alt Buy Offer which instead returns the warning “The buyer’s security deposit is not within the constraints defined by the Bisq DAO”.
It a small offer so the Default Buyer (presumably the BTC Buyer/Alt Seller) Deposit is defaulted at .001. Wondering if this is a Bug or normal behavior and if so what is the rational for not allowing the Alt Buy Offer from being edited (a show-stopper imho for Buying Alts on bisq).
Fyi - this is a recently re-listed Asset BTM on 30 day trial so I’m wondering if there some residue from the original delisting at play. Before I post a Bug issue to Github having confirmation that other Alt Buyers can edit their offers would be helpful. Thx!
I haven’t been able to gain confirmation from other Alt Buyers but since I’ve been able to Edit other Alt Buy Offers I’m presuming this is a BUG related to the reinstatement of BTM on trial.
To help clarify the issue I’ve posted a screenshot to the OP and also posted a link to this ticket in the DAO section of Slack so hopefully some insight will be forthcoming soon. Thx
Actually, I remember having had the same problem with a BSQ trade, so it might not specific to the trial period. If I remember correctly, it was a also a very low volume trade that I couldn’t edit. I think it’s related to the BTC amount of the trade.
Something like the initial offer creation screen enforcing a minimum BTC amount for the security deposit that is, as percentage of the trade amount, actually too high to be valid, so it can’t be edited anymore.
Edit: I might further investigate this and create an issue on GitHub later.
I was thinking the same thing but when setting-up the low volume trade was reminded by the interface that Bisq asserts the minimum .001 deposit so it seems to me this is a BUG.or some arcane DAO rule. I mean if the Buyer is prepared to submit the .001 collateral why would the DAO not allow the price of the Alt to be revised (essential in my opinion to trade Alts on Bisq given the inherent price discovery.
Appreciate the feedback, having additional info supporting a Github case would be really helpful so if you or another community member could confirm this finding as a potential BUG (or better yet creat a case ) that would be great. Thanks!
I actually went ahead and proposed a fix! From my local testing, it seems to solve the problem. If you know how to build Bisq from source it would be great if you could test if it fixes the problem for you, too!
Awesome, thanks so much for taking the time to confirm the behavior then escalating to Github while explaining the issue in very understandable terms.Much appreciated!
