What’s the story on increasing trade limits for some payment methods? We’ve been told it will go back to normal after implementing some update, yet new upgrades of Bisq have continually happened and still, no sign of increased trade limits.
I have an account a few months old, a handful of successful Zelle trades, and yet, I still cannot trade more than $100 worth using Zelle.
I appreciate the limit system, and agree it should be limited and only increase as successful trades happen.
I’d love to continue using Bisq, but at this point IDK if I can handle such low liquidity
I agree it’s a real problem and development has been really slow. We’re now making some progress on this issue though. It won’t be in the next release, coming over the next week, but I hope it will be ready for the one after.
Great to hear this is high priority! I’ve done quite a few trades with Zelle and the .01 limit is pretty severe. But if chargebacks or stolen accounts are an issue, then I can understand not really treating it as a viable payment method. Thanks for working on this issue.
I have an account since March 2019 and have done more than 60 trades, my limit is the same of 0.01 BTC, until when? Why are there people with much higher limits with less uptime? grateful for answers.
we’ve been told that the .01 limit would be lifted in a soon coming release… for at least 3 months now.
That limit is a sure way to deter any new bisq user when he/she discovers that a 0.01 buy comes with 20+% in fees. Answer given to those people that they can trade as much as they want is really borderline.
It seems that the account signing initiative is taking more time to implement that previously announced. So the question is, are there other easier measure that could be implemented in the meantime.
The seller of Bitcoin for fiat is taking the risk of chargeback because of stolen bank accounts etc. On the other hand he can not really filter the trading partners that are taking his offers if he is the market maker.
At the moment he can only restrict the countries in the case SEPA. If he could also set a filter criteria for the account age for the taker that may help that his large offer is not taken by a newly created scammer account. However that does not guarantee that older accounts are unused, dormant scammer accounts.
Maybe the number of trades between two partipants could be used as a filter criteria in taking offers. Already now the number of trades between two distinct traders are marked with the numbers of trade on the avatar. So if the seller could create a >0.01 offfer and specifiy that this offer may also be taken by a trading parters with whom he has already traded before several times that may alleviate the situation a bit.
just read the “strengthening Account Age by requiring payments from 2 Bank Accounts” proposal and seems those guys have given deep thoughts to those issues. Solutions are all non trivials though.
