The thing that makes me hesitant to trade on the new protocol is that the btc donation address holder is elected by the DAO. Literally all we know about this person is that they had 50,000 BSQ to lock up. The arbitrators were at least chosen by BSQ developers which I think provided more safety.
If I were a scammer I’d see the possibility to run off with 100s of btc and definitely risk 50,000 BSQ to try on that particular scam. I’m not talking about collusion here, I’m talking about the donation address holder actively trading with the intent to scam.
Do we have any visibility of the donation address funds. ie any way to verify that a published time-locked transaction is used to pay back an XMR seller who wasn’t released? I think that would really help if we could somehow prove that any unreleased trades were being resolved by the donation address holder.
I guess if my suggested attack actually happened and lets say I took 10-20 BTC of trades in one go then I could elect to only publish one time locked transaction at a time? this would limit the benefit to the scammer but I’m guessing my funds would still be lost because the donation address holder / scammer would always have the key to that transaction so if the XMR buyer never came back that BTC would be lost forever still.
The multi sig for the time lock is a good suggestion but I’m not sure it would solve the issue because it would just mean multiple donation address holders are voted on in the DAO and it could be the same person.
I realise that not a lot has changed and we had all these risks with the old trade protocol but the big difference for me now and the thing that’s putting me off is that the donation address holder is now completely anonymous, which i’m sure is by design but it makes the whole thing a bit more risky.
Fair point with number 3, didn’t think that through, oops.