Thinking more about the insurance model I think it could work out if we just increase the fee for the seller in case he wants an insurance. It can be 0.5% or 1% of the trade volume and the arbitrator would handle the insurance.
So the arbitrator earns a bit more for those who want insurance and will refund victims in BTC if it is a clear case.
To avoid insurance fraud he will be very strict and the seller need to have followed the trade protocol (e.g. have not accepted a payment with incorrect payment details or reference text). Further he need to provide tamper proof evidence either with Pagesigner or with screensharing/video call etc. ID verification to the arbitrator might also be considered to avoid repeated scams (one could trade with oneself and issue a chargeback and request the insurance refund then). Though that is difficult as we see in the case of @ElGuapoAmigo where he got scammed as only victim 5 times at nearly the same time. Such a case would look suspicious for the arbitrator and it cannot be clearly separated from repeated insurance scams. Maybe we would need a max refund per trader as well to limit such risks?
It would be an experiment if it works in practice so that the insurance scam rate is low enough that it works. Also the question what users are willing to pay for such an insurance.
The arbitrators take considerable risk by providing that extra service, so that need to be compensated good enough otherwise they will not offer that service.
We could start with a higher fee and once a good reserve fund has been allocated we can reduce the fee if there are few cases.
If the insurance is optional we need to add that information to the trade data so that the arbitrator can verify that in case of a dispute. The fee payment would not be an extra payment but just an increase of the normal trade fee. From the fee amount the arbitrator cannot derive that information as the fees are dynamic and depend on trade volume and market distance.
If we would make it mandatory and just increase the fee for the seller that problem would not exist. It is not a real problems just more effort for implementation. It would also reduce complexity for users (no need to make a decision) and creates a larger insurance body.
The arbitrators would get a strong voice for new payment methods to get added if they are primarily exposed to the risks. We could add an informal rule that the arbitrators need to agree to a new method by 80%.
Once the DAO is complete and the new arbitration system in place the fees can be set by voting and the arbitration system will be more a market place with competition, but that will take time to get there…
What do you think?
What would be the max. acceptable fee for such an insurance?
If I were a bankster, I would know with a good probability that the concerned trades victims are on the cryptomoney side. And I will let that continue, if not encourage it by giving the trick to accomplices. (If this was not already done from the very beginning).
The risk is ~0, and even if catched (very improbable), it’s 99% guaranted the whole chain, from the bank to state justice, will close its eyes.
So long for investigations imho.
Yes I’m a paranoiac
You are being slightly paranoiac, yes. I don’t believe in the global bankster conspiracy against cryptocurrency.
One problem is that there a many people in the world who would like a free (say) 0,05 BTC. The universe of potential scammers is very large and not limited to career criminals. Another problem is that many people are stupid and get their bank passwords phished. I tried advertising to sell on LBC. I thought I should start small, which was a mistake. I quickly received multiple offers to buy $300 worth of BTC by bank transfer from a particular Australian bank. I soon discovered that this bank would allow transfers up to $300 without 2FA,
Many internet scammers live in poor countries and are quite “hungry”. Assuming that scammers are few or interested only in large sums is naive.
@ManfredKarrer asked about demand for Venmo / re: using services like Venmo to “send money between friends” - yes, at least in the US, that’s apparently a major part of the appeal, especially among normies that otherwise only know how to use cash or personal checks to get money to people they know in real life. That’s how I got onboarded onto it; I needed to pay someone back for my share of a group vacation, and that person wasn’t nearby anymore / had returned to their home several states away. I offered PayPal or mailing her a check, she suggested I send her the $ via Venmo which she was a BIG fan of. That’s how I was pulled into it - network effect from my less-technical normie friends.
I can see the appeal for that use case. And for most normies using it among friends (who therefore do NOT realistically have to worry about getting scammed) it’s a pretty cool way to settle up small to medium sized debts.
But what these normies don’t yet appreciate or realize re: Venmo, CashApp (or even Zelle?) is that their transactions really are NOT immutable at all. They’re blissfully ignorant to the risks because they haven’t been burned yet. It’s “good enough”. They don’t know about the shortcomings.
Long term, for cryptocurrencies to really succeed in developed nations with existing “good enough” options like Venmo, CashApp, (Zelle?), the general population will need to learn to appreciate the importance and value of immutability. Right now they don’t. They are willing to take on risk that they don’t really even know they have taken on in exchange for convenience.
But once enough people realize they can have all of the speed and convenience of Venmo in a mobile Bitcoin wallet, AND that they can have their transactions delivered with 100% immutability? That’s when crypto really takes off. And Venmo begins to die.
Disabling Zelle in the US will disable trades. There is no more convenient way to pay. Otherwise, traders will have to open many new bank accounts to trade. That’s not pragmatic.
I would start with 0.75% fee.
Venmo: how the payment app exposes our private lives
Hi everyone, I love bisq. Thanks to everyone for doing such a great job with everything. I know this is kind of an old topic and it seems like consensus has been reached on this issue, but something terrible just happened and I feel like this community should know.
Back in May I bought some BTC using venmo as the payment method. The seller’s BTC was locked in escrow, I paid through venmo, and all was good. But just today I find that the payment was reversed! (in my favor, venmo gave back the usd I sent for the transaction.) What has me very worried is that I didn’t request any chargeback, and this was a very old payment from almost 3 months ago. The seller thinks I scammed him (which is understandable) and wants to take me to court, but it was actually Venmo that reversed the payment without consulting me. WTF? I suspect that Venmo is crawling through old transactions and reversing any they suspect to be related to bitcoin, and this is their way of trying to screw over the traders that propose a threat to their business model.
I would like to right the issue with the seller but don’t really know how. If I send the venmo back I’m worried it will end up reversed again (or worse). I invited the counterparty to contact me through protonmail to work on a resolution. I have other transactions I did in venmo that I am worried will be reversed too, and I don’t want to involve additional btc sellers in this mess through no fault of my own.
tl;dr - venmo reversed a payment from 3 months ago that I used to fund a bisq transaction. I had no malicious intent and am trying to right the situation. All venmo transactions should be interpreted as ‘at risk’, not just those from addresses listed in the OP.
Thanks for bringing this info here. What a mess.
3 months back, if true obviously this is done, intentionally, to hurt.
Fintech is worse than banks!
Thanks for your report and please try to contact the peer so that you can arrange a solution.
Venmo has reversed payments from other users that did not initiate a chargeback as well. I have lost over $4000 dollars due Venmo because of this mess. Really unfortunate.
How could Bisq add such a payment method that could be reversed? There have been numerous articles since 2015 now that I am doing the research on Venmo. My Bitcoins are legitimate and I cannot afford to lose 4K because of these malicious actors and will do full KYC. Any suggestions on how to proceed with Venmo? Or simply mark this as a loose?
I blindly trusted using Venmo since the Bisq team added it. I should have done my own due diligence before since I would have found all the various articles. Please do a better job when vetting payment methods.
It was advertised here since the beginning of may that
“In response to recent reports of fraudulent chargeback activity 16, Bisq co-founders have broadcast network-wide alert messages blocking both Cash App and Venmo payment methods from further use.”
In fact the decision was taken very rapidly, as soon as the first proven worries with venmo were related.
Venmo and CashApp have been formally removed from Bisq payment methods in the last Bisq release : v0.7.1.
These are old transactions. My point was that why would a reversible payment method be added in the first place? What is done is done. It is just unfortunate that Venmo seems to protect the scammers instead.
I guess best you could do now is contact Venmo. I am not sure what you would say, but there is unfortunately nothing that Bisq team can do now.
If you can, you should contact those traders as well. Perhaps some will still pay you back in Bitcoin or another payment method.
Ultimately, all legacy banking payment networks ARE reversible. I think it’s paramount we add F2F listings to BISQ asap. Users need a better way to trade and BISQ’s unique security/escrow solves many safety concerns going forward with local F2F trading. Bring the people together. Don’t trust your bank’s payment networks.
Soo is Cash App just not available for use? Me and my dad sent money back and forth fine last week but this week i cant even send 1 dollar to my girlfriend
You should carefully read the 1st post of this thread where the things are well explained.
How did you and your dad sent money back and forth last week ? thru Bisq ?
Sounds like you are having problems with Cash App, not Bisq.
Bisq just removed it as a payment method due to chargeback risk, the app itself should still work as far as we know.
This is the wrong way to deal with fraud. If people are having their funds clawed back, it should be the mediator’s job to do something about it. Also, if this is happening so much, it means that people aren’t using these systems properly. If you’re using venmo, you should withdraw from venmo to your bank BEFORE sending the bitcoin. Bisq should completely layout the method and steps to take for any given payment method. There should be UI that says “Have you received a venmo payment yet? Yes? You’re not done. Withdraw those funds and ensure they appear in your bank. Have you received those funds in your bank? Yes? Ensure they’ve been in your bank for at least X days before sending payment.”
Every fiat payment method will have chargeback issues, and those need to be handled by waiting until finality is complete AND having mediators that can deal with chargeback issues. Without building this into the protocol, Bisq can’t handle any payment method with chargebacks.
is there a time when finality is complete?