All of these answers depend on the arbitrator, this is why they exist, to make such decisions. You have a right to disagree of course.
I am just giving my opinions on this issue on what I think is reasonable.
I don’t know, this is all a hypothetical situation that I don’t think happened before. It is up to the arbitrator to decide the details. I think that trades shouldn’t be forced and instead security deposit of the seller should be given to the buyer and the trade closed. This is probably how arbitrator would deal with this.
I guess it is your opinion that by not receiving BTC a bit faster a potential for significant profit is lost. If the trade happened without the dispute, the outcome would be the same, it is just that buyer would get his BTC earlier. To me it just seems sensible that what actually hurts the buyer emotionally is that he had to part with his SC by the time it was worth more and was clear to him that he made a bad trading decision, while still being in control of the SC he promised to sell at that rate. But of course this should not be a formal discussion of this issue.
I would say that the only damage was that buyer didn’t receive his BTC sooner, which arbitrators sometimes feel like it should require a punishment. But in this case, arbitrator probably felt like it was not the seller’s fault.
Again, this is not that simple. It is hard to call this damage, at least on part of Bisq or the other trader. This simply sounds like a bad trading decision with an excuse, I am sorry, this is just my opinion. I am neither an arbitrator, nor the seller, nor the buyer, this is my objective (hopefully) opinion on the issue. It is ok if you disagree, I value your opinion on this.
Arbitrators are humans, so they can adjust to potential scams when they learn about them. This is a benefit of Bisq. If it was a linear protocol, either no user would be able to make any mistakes without losing a security deposit, which seems unnecessarily harsh, or such scams would become common. One of the reasons that arbitrators are there is that they don’t allow for loop holes to be exploited. This is why if it happened multiple times, it would start seeming like a scam and not as a user’s mistake. It is a test on guinea pigs, it is an adaptation to the situation with natural intelligence.
My opinion is that no one is likely at fault for this buyer’s problem other than the buyer that made a bad trading decision that was quickly obvious, even before the trade was fully completed.
I think it is logical to assume that if the buyer received his BTC quicker, he would have the same loss. But again, this is just my personal opinion.
I think that arbitrator did the right thing now, but I am not certain. I am sure that they will take note of how upset some traders can be in such situations in the future and will take it into account next time.
It is not a loss of a security deposit, it is just an opinion that he should be compensated with other trader’s security deposit for getting his BTC a bit later than intended. Disputes don’t end that often with security deposits taken and Bisq users often are understanding of this, it is just that they usually don’t have such a bad experience with the trade so they don’t care that much if it takes a bit longer. How long did the dispute take, by the way?