Action Protocol for Mediators #307
Comments
Why not take max for not responders? I think 2 days is enough for anyone to respond.
For Pagesigner the user send some data, not a screenshot... |
|
No matter how big the violation is, mediation should never remove 100% of a trader's security deposit to keep the incentive to accept it. Maybe 10% of security deposit should be always left for the losing part. |
|
Yes he cannot, there is min amount which always be refunded to keep that incentive. I think its 0.003 BTC |
This may be unattractive to the BTC seller. I assume they'd prefer to get their security deposit back instead of waiting another 3 days.
This isn't always obvious because for some payment methods, the receiver (the BTC seller) can't see enough details from the sender to send the funds back. |
|
Hi @leo816 Thanks for this proposal. From a traders perspective (mainly selling BTC) I have found mediation to be increasingly frustrating over the last few months. I think there is an issue with lack of consistency which hopefully a proposal of an action protocol can fix. I also think mediation would be best carried out by anonymous mediators. I often feel I have to hold back when dealing with mediators due to me having knowledge of who they are. I much prefer dealing with an anonymous refund agent where I have no idea who they are. From my experience one of the main causes of frustration I have had is with how communication is carried out during mediation. Preface - Good communication = Positive experiencesI see Bisq as a great community that delivers a fantastic service to it's users. When a trade runs into a problem that require mediation I think this is a fantastic opportunity for Bisq to build a positive relationship with the trader and turn a potential negative experience into a positive one. When a trade runs into a problem the level of service you receive can make an impact of whether you choose to continue to place future trades on Bisq, or use alternatives. A positive mediation experience has the potential to create a lifelong positive relationship with Bisq for a trader. What does good communication look like in mediationI see good communication by mediators as meeting (hopefully exceeding) the expectations of it's users. I think communication with mediators should be:
My experience of how communication has been in mediation in the last few monthsIn the last few months I must have had about 30 or so trades end in mediation for various reasons. I think for a number of reasons (problems with Tor, bug causing traders not to be able to press required buttons, Mediators leaving etc) cases have been up significantly. I am sure this has resulted in additional workload for the mediators. Most of the mediation experiences have been positive. However, there have been more mediation experiences than I would like that have been less than positive. This has been due to a number of reasons. The list below is just a list of issues that are in-keeping to my expectations in terms of communication. There have been also been a number of issues with regards to consistency which I have not documented yet. At times I have found the following issues with communication during mediation.
The above is not common but I think at least 20% of my mediation cases have experienced some of the above issues. I do not necessarily think it is deliberate, I just think that maybe there is not a shared understanding about how good mediation is delivered. It could also be due to the increased demands of mediation that has occurred over the last few months. One of my issues with communication that happens in nearly all cases is that mediator chat is closed when mediation is proposed. This often does not give opportunity for feedback, or if a new user has questions. Mediators should give traders the chance to ask questions about the mediation proposed, let them know if there are any problems, and give them the opportunity for feedback. Yes, trader can reopen mediation but this may not be know by all traders. I think I the issues above have had a negative impact on my trading activity in the last couple of months. At times, when I have had a number of concurrent trades in mediation. I have felt the need to wait on the result prior to placing new offers or making new trades. I suppose I have lost a little confidence in the mediation process though both issues with communication and problems with consistency. Proposals to improve communicationTo address the above I would propose for discussion the following:
SummaryI think it would be great to improve consistency between trades. But fundamental to a good mediation service is communication. Therefore, it would be great to see Bisq proving effective communication when trades need to enter mediation. I also feel if communication improved then it is likely consistency would also improve in conjunction with this. |
So am I right in thinking that even blatant scammers get some of their security deposit back? To me that makes little sense.
Excellent breakdown. Yes. Conflict resolution. As always communication is vital to the experience. But speed is as well. Empathy is the trait that can't be taught, and is most helpful in a CS support role.
Did not realise this was an incentivised KPI for agents... absolutely wrong incentive structure. When judging agent actions these 3 KPI's balanced are what best comprise an overall customer experience. If you over incentivise the agent for any of these, especially when $ is involved - you will get negative/sub optimal outcomes. Avg. first reply time = how long it takes for agent to reply to ticket/escalation All of those together make the foundation, the consequences of e.g. just incentivising any 'one' over the others leads to very poor results.
Yeah wow. I've only ever had one mediation thing, early days - failed trade/bug. This was rather eye opening. Is there any on-boarding material for new agents/mediators? Expectation setting? An internal guide of sorts? Because it needs to keep getting mentioned where-ever possible:
Are agents actively reporting on the issues? These should be top priority for fixes from dev teams if anything can be done, to reduce amount of tickets/escalations. Logging the no. can help prioritise what to focus on as well. |
Agreed. The ticket should remain open and only be closed by the mediator once the multisig output of the Deposit transaction gets spent.
|
There has to be some incentive to accept the mediation payout from the 2of2 since it requires the scammers signature. During the refund process nothing should be given back to scammers obviously. |
Kind of confused by this. Any reference to docs would help. My apologies. |
I'm sure there's a doc somewhere, but I don't know where unfortunately. The process goes, buyer and seller send funds, including their security deposits, to a 2of2 with a presigned payout to the donation address. If the don't agree to complete the trade with the trade protocol, perhaps due to one of them being a scammer, there are then two paths forward. Either sending funds to the donation address and dealing with arbitration, which can be slow, or do the mediation. Mediation means the mediator suggest a payout structure and both parties sign their part of the 2of2. If there is no funds coming back to the scammer they have no reason at all to accept the mediated suggestion so the funds will go to arbitration where they also get nothing but it's detrimental to the DAO. |
|
For reference for my perspective selling BTC here are some of the issues I have run into that have caused trades to enter mediation:
It would be useful for anyone to share experiences from a buyer's perspective. |
|
With the use of penalties I see 'fair' as achieving the following for both buyers and sellers:
From my perspective as a seller I do not like to hold onto funds of the Buyer. Eg buyer made the payment from the incorrect account. Mediator might suggest I should refund them and then wait for them to send it from the correct account. This brings in the possibility of errors; maybe they paid from another account as their account details that are set up on Bisq are incorrect, maybe there are fees to pay for sending payments, maybe I am opening myself up to questions from the bank about refunds, maybe I am giving the other party a free option on whether to continue the trade depending on the price of BTC, maybe they do not provide correct details until the trade window has past. I would much rather not have to refund payments. I also think that if payment is not made within the trade window, the seller should have the option of calling time on the trade, or if payment is late, refunding the payee if they choose not to continue with the trade. This would encourage traders to send money immediately. With SEPA being 6 days, I think it encourages traders to wait and see what happens with BTC price before sending payment. I do not find it a coincidence that 'problems with banks' are more likely to be raised at day 4/5/6 in the trade window when the price of BTC has fallen. With the below penalties I think they should be cumulative. Eg when payment is made late using a unagreed payment reference more than one penalty will apply. These are the proposals for the above I think would be fair.
Buyer loses half their security deposit up to a maximum of 25% of the trade amount.
Buyer loses half their security deposit up to a maximum of 25% of the trade amount.
Buyer loses 5% of the trade amount for every day they are late. Up to a maximum of half their security deposit.
Buyer loses half their security deposit up to a maximum of 25% of the trade amount.
Buyer loses half their security deposit up to a maximum of 25% of the trade amount.
Buyer loses 50% their security deposit.
Buyer loses half their security deposit up to a maximum of 10% of the trade amount.
Buyer loses half their security deposit up to a maximum of 25% of the trade amount.
Buyer provides evidence that they were unable to access Bisq (Git Hub issue / keybase chat etc). If unable buyer loses half their security deposit up to a maximum of 25% of the trade amount.
Buyer has the option to send the correct amount within the trade window. If they fail to do this Buyer loses 5% of the trade amount for every day they are late. Up to a maximum of half their security deposit.
Buyer loses 50% their security deposit.
Buyer loses 50% their security deposit.
Buyer has the option to complete the trade within the trade window. If they fail to do this Buyer loses 5% of the trade amount for every day they are late. Up to a maximum of half their security deposit.
Buyer loses half their security deposit up to a maximum of 10% of the trade amount.
Buyer loses half their security deposit up to a maximum of 25% of the trade amount.
Buyer loses 5% of the trade amount for every day they are late. Up to a maximum of half their security deposit.
Buyer loses half their security deposit up to a maximum of 10% of the trade amount. |
My experience dealing with a scammer on Bisq was the following. Mediator proposed the scammer lose half their security deposit, I accepted, scammer didn't (the trade was for 0.01 BTC with a 0.006 security deposit, mediators cannot suggest anything that leaves a trader with 0.003 BTC or less) this is to incentivize them to accept rather than going to arbitration. Trade went to arbitration. Scammer did not respond to arbitrator. I was awarded all their security deposit. So all in all a positive experience. |
|
These are my updated proposals based on the fact most trades use a 15% security deposit and traders need an incentive to accept the mediation to avoid trade going to arbitration. Here are suggestions for BTC Buyer issues:
Here are suggestions for BTC Seller issues (I took the above and edited them. Not sure if there should be more added?)
|
|
"Buyer-seller is asking for selfie, copy of ID of seller, home address." "Buyer loses 50% of of the trade amount. Buyer retains the rest of their security deposit." Buyer can't lose 50% of the trade amount unless they've used a 50% security deposit, which is not very frequent. We can't prove if buyer agreed to a certain payment reference as mediators don't have access to trading chat. Still, I agree that it should be penalized. bisq-network/bisq#5044 "Seller does not release BTC in trade window" We still don't have a way to penalize late sellers. bisq-network/bisq#4162 "Seller takes altcoin offer and then sends altcoin with a low fee that gets held up in the blockchain." Sellers don't send any altcoin payment, they just post trading and security amount at the fees recommended by Bisq client. "Seller made a mistake they actually meant to buy not sell BTC, but offer was taken. | Seller has the option to complete the trade within the trade window. If they fail to do this Seller loses the following; 0-24 hours late: Seller loses 2.5% of the trade amount, 24-48 hours late: Seller loses 5% of the trade amount, 48-72 hours late: Seller loses 7.5% of the trade amount, 72-96 hours late: Seller loses 10% of the trade amount." |
For me it does not matter who is asking for it trader, or traders bank. Either way I think there should be an incentive to not ask for it and / or for trader to use another bank for their Bisq trades.
It is taken from the security deposit + trade amount. Therefore even with a 15 % deposit Buyer could lose 115% of the trade amount, assuming seller has received the fiat.
Agree this is not straight forward. Screen shots of Bisq should be ok for most cases I think. Most traders would likely agree there had been no agreement. I made this as now trade references have been removed I am getting some weird and wonderful references. Most of them are for services the buyer has decided to make up I have provided to them!
Do you not think 2.5% per day being taken from the sellers security deposit would be appropriate? If it goes to arbitration they would lose the full deposit. So incentive is to accept the lesser amount of 2.5-10% depending on how late they are.
Thanks I agree. This was my mistake. It was left over from the 'BTC buyer issues' thinking specifically of selling BTC for BSQ and being sent BSQ with a fee that doesn't confirm for days.
My example is the buyer that wants to buy BTC for -50% to market price, but they actually place an offer to sell BTC at -50% market price. I think if anyone comes and takes the trade of them the seller should complete or lose 10%. If the seller has made an offer close to market price they can complete with little penalty. This would give people second thoughts about making opportunistic offers. I would be happy if it were less if a time limit was agreed for the amount of time a seller could back out of the offer and the exact penalty for doing so. |
|
Here are updated suggestions following support call 24 Feb 2021. BTC Buyer issues:
BTC Seller issues
|
|
It's such a big chart. The chart is too big. Why must we create all of these variables? Why/how in the hell can it be this complicated? What I mean to say is. Why have you complicated the 'mediator" task? Your humongous chart has too many rows. Let's try to make it WAY more simple. The trade failed. Who gets the money? C'mon. We can do this! DO NOT let the robots win. |
|
Yes, lots of rows! I tried to cover as many eventualities as possible. Started with looking at my own trades as a basis for disputes that had arisen. Any ideas how to make it more simple? If the trade failed in Bisq (no confirmation) then no exchange should occur. |
|
Hi @clearwater-trust can you come up with fewer cases that sufficiently describe all possibilities @pazza83 described? |
|
Why are you trying to sufficiently describe all possibilities? DO NOT follow through with this fee schedule chart madness. NOBODY WILL UNDERSTAND WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON. Traders need to KNOW WHAT TO EXPECT. This fee schedule is garbage. IF you continue this huge chart madness, the mediator/arbitrator can make up their own fee schedule (because nobody will understand what to expect) and the PROBLEM CONTINUES. MAKE IT SIMPLE. For example: If the seller is absent and the buyer provides payment evidence, buyer gets the funds and security deposit. ALL BUGS and outliers should be treated as such. Changing rewards based on a HUGE EFFING CHART is RIDICULOUS! |
The benefits of describing multiple scenarios is to:
Mediators are still able to decide what they would like to propose, and traders are able to also agree between themselves how they would like to resolve any disputes. The table is to act as a guide for buyers, sellers, and mediators. Makes everyone on the same page. Keeping it as simple as possible would be great. A system that is simple that covers multiple scenarios would be great. The above is simple as I could make it to cover multiple scenarios. |
Things like this can escalate, and make the bank account close. And if either pair reach the support of the bank and logically provide detail of the trade they will mention "Bisq and bitcoin" After all of that the seller/buyer can keep his security deposit ? |
|
Oversimplifying can be unjust and there are differences in the severity which should be considered. Also the motivation of the trader must be taken into consideration, if he presumably had bad intentions or if he was just careless.
Number code: |
|
GARBAGE REWARD SCHEDULE FOR FAILED TRADES. NOBODY KNOWS WHAT TO EXPECT NOW. Thanks to the robots for ruining what should be a simple reward schedule. Mediator/arbitrator fee collusion and confusion is still alive and well. Solves nothing and only makes things worse. |
|
It's great to have clear guidelines on how to deal with cases. I think this will lead to mediators having an easier time and a more consistent mediation experience for bisq users. I support this effort. |
Agree with this. From Hoppe's Property, Causality, and Liability:
So whilst the guidance helps.. if it's pretty clear someone is scammer/being deliberately deceptive/fraudulent etc. then the punishment should be far worse (to the extent they lose everything), that should be possible to enact.
Agreed for sure. Don't quite understand Clearwater's explosiveness. "Buyer does not respond to mediator for 48 hours" = just to call this out as an example... there needs to be a ton of ownership taken by Bisq itself for not properly facilitating stuff like this. I have several git's looking to improve this woeful UX. |
Yes, but only because mediators cannot suggest the suspected fraudulent trader lose everything. As there would be no incentive for them to accept the mediation. If the trade ends in arbitration the arbitrator / refund agent can reward everything to the victim / wronged trader. |
Thanks for the feedback. Based on the suggestions what trade scenarios that end in mediation would a trader not know what to expect? |
|
@sturmsignal thanks for the feedback. The idea was to base the table on the trade amount rather that the deposit amount. Reason for this was that deposit percentage can be variable and also minimum security deposit would potentially unjustly penalize traders of small amounts of BTC. Hopefully using a percentage of the trade amount makes this more equitable. Based on the above what percentages do you think would be fitting? |
Thanks @Conza88, I think mediation should not be conflated with judgement. Mediators should be impartial and act to allow two traders to reach a consensus. In the Bisq dispute resolution process, arbitration, is more akin to judgement. The above protocols do not cover arbitration. The arbitrator is free to make their own judgement based on the facts presented to them. |
|
Ah right. Yeah, I wasn't clear on that. |
|
Hi @sturmsignal
This being a protocol for mediators I tried to keep the proposals based on objective facts and disregard subjective opinions. I think mediation is about considering the facts and making a suggestion that moves both traders forwards in the resolution. Having clear guideline helps facilitates this as it gives all parties something to refer back to. This protocol does not cover arbitration where the decision will be open to both a consideration of the facts and the arbitrators own subjective opinion. |
Yes, in hindsight I should have made this distinction earlier! |
What if the buyer is 1 hour past the trade window? What about 36 hours, what about 72 hours? Should they be penalized the same or not at all? What if the payment is made 72 hours late but the price of BTC has increased by 20%, what if it has dropped by 20%? What if the seller no longer wants to trade due to late payment? Can they refund the buyer? |
|
@pazza83 @clearwater-trust @sqrrm @Conza88 @chimp1984 @leo816 @sturmsignal @RififiCastorjunior I invite you to move the discussion of penalties to this discussion board. |
|
I refuse to play your what if game. HOW WILL WE ACCOUNT FOR ARBITRATORS IF THEY CAN SELECT FROM A HUGE SCHEDULE OF REWARDS? We must limit the confusion and collusion so we can ACCOUNT FOR FEES and be able to easily understand the work arbitrators are doing for us. This huge reward schedule WILL NOT WORK. |
|
Closing as was approved. @leo816 thanks for this proposal. Updates can be see in the Project Improve support and mediation |
This is a proposal for a fixed action protocol for mediators, update after the first draft done in #237. up until then it was vaguely established. These are some common situations that mediators stumble upon, This will be a base guidance but Mediators will ultimately have the final decision:
If the buyer provided proof that the trade was stuck in stage 1 he will not be penalized.
-If the buyer doesn't pay on time but can't justify or gives a vague explanation he will be penalized with 75% of the deposit.
-If the buyer doesn't make the payment or doesn't respond he will be penalized with the maximum amount of the deposit.
Whether it’s because the button is greyed out or because the trade is still stuck in stage 2 the mediator should first confirm t. he seller received the payment, then ask both traders to fill the “bug report template” and pass it on to devs to fix the issue.
The seller will lose 50% of the deposit in favor of the buyer. Regardless as to whether the buyer wants to continue with the trade or not, this will be a fixed policy.
Mediator will have to wait 48hrs for an answer from the btc seller, if he doesn’t respond, the seller will lose the maximum amount of the deposit.
If the seller responds on time but from then on goes missing for 48hrs, the same applies.
Steps to follow:
• Ask the buyer for a verified proof of the payment using Pagesigner And an explanation as to why he didn’t comply with the contract. If he is unable to use pagesigner he must make a video of verifying what account he made the payment from (making sure to change tabs so that is not a static video, those are easier to fake)
• Given that the seller wants to continue with the trade. The mediator will penalize the buyer by having him wait to receive his btc. 3 days before indicating the seller to release. Reminding him that this is a crucial issue at bisq and this is a way to protect it from a scam.
• If the buyer doesn’t respond and the seller wants to cancel he can choose to return the payment and cancel the trade.
Comments for Mediator's and Support Agents:
If a user has still locked funds shown in the UI but no failed trade in the pending trades view, a closed or failed trade causes the problem. The easiest way to solve this is to delete the ClosedTrades and FailedTrades files in the db folder. The user has to shut down bisq first, do a backup and then delete those 2 files. after that the locked funds should be 0 if not other open trades.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: