Sold BTC 3 days ago, buyer still didn't send SEPA

Hello,

I recently started a trade (3 days ago) for a SEPA payment and buyer still
didn’t send the SEPA transaction, price was a lot higher than it is now
and I fear, that the buyer might just decide to now send it all and use this tactics
to only make trades when the price switches in his favor and I will be stuck with
BTC that are now worth way less than for what I intended to sell them.

Even if he doesn’t send any SEPA and I get his full security deposit
I would lose more on the trade than the security deposit would bring me.

This is so far just speculation, but I am already waiting for him to mark the payment as started
for over 3 days. If this should be the case are there any plans by the community to ban such
bad actors? Or have this kind of potential issue been discussed in general?

Again, this is just sepculation, but it made me think how bad actors might abuse the volatilty
of BTC price in their favor in that way, especially when you trade a larger sum in a trade and the
fee becomes a minor issue, when BTC price goes up or down for 10%+

1 Like

The security deposit is the punishment for this behavior. I’m not comfortable going further and banning them. It is explicit beforehand the max. duration the trade can take and the punishments for bad behavior.

1 Like

When seing an offer, YOU see how much deposit the maker puts on.
Given the volatility, it’s up to YOU to estimate the associated risk and decide to take the offer or not take the offer.
If YOU find this kind of behaviour bad behaviour, just cease fueling it by only selecting offers with high deposit.
But don’t come afterwards , when you know how things turned, and then ask somebody else to take measures.
Would you have posted here if things did turn in your favor ?

Bisq should be a place to trade between responsible peoples.
Not a place which trades instead of its users, which regulates, punishes, rewards, etc.
It’s not a kindergarten here !

1 Like

Really interesting, haven’t realised that before.

Also good point.

Excuse my newbie question, but wouldn’t 100% security deposits solve this problem? And the chargeback problem, for that matter? why is 50% the maximum?

Think 50% of the trade amount is punishment enough, plus 100% security deposit seems a high demand for trading.

Mandatory high deposits would increase security but create a lot of friction, because some people don’t want to risk or leave so much money for a trade.
I think the best choice is to inform the Bisq users and let peers decide the terms of their trades.

It was my understanding you are guaranteed to have your security deposit back after you make the bank transfer. Am I missing something? (again, sorry for the beginner questions)

On a trade with no problems, each trader gets back their security deposit. But that amount is locked during the trade period. I think that’s what @MnM is referring to.

2 Likes

Yes, that’s it.
But I feel I’m risking my deposit because when I lock the funds I’m not the only propietary of private keys anymore.

In the long term, 100% deposit is probably an interesting solution (to many problems).
However, before being in the long term we must consider the history and habits using Bisq. Which is not using 100% deposit atm.
Also, when a maker uses N% deposit, I believe that the taker has to do the same … I’m a bit doubtful about how such offers behave on Bisq atm.

But I agree that 100% deposit is the long term way to go.
(See https://github.com/bisq-network/proposals/issues/52 )
And maybe we should already begin by allowing 100% deposit for makers. It should not be very complicated, and I see no strong reason against that.
I would however be curious to know how many makers use already the max deposit limit ?

1 Like