[Approved, sort of] Liability for price fluctuations (BTC)

ok ok i support this makes sense.

 

That's more than enough, you also can't predict how long it'll take anyway so I don't think that would ever be expected

 

With how much the staff are willing to bend rules until they're not the same rule anymore and just making them up on the spot and acting as if it is a rule, maybe you guys can get creative with it and rule against scumbags like these even if it's not super specifically against the rules.

So many ruling you make are devoid of all logic to benefit someone, use a little bit of that power abuse for good.

Everything that doesn't seem to have a contract for you guys seems to at least default to "reasonable" even though you determine reasonable incorrectly a lot of the times.

So, I propose the following, and no rule is really required:

• It is reasonable to assume that if the trade is done in USD, at a set rate, the persons selling the gold and receiving the BTC should receive the USD amount at the time of receipt, outside of normal fluctuations.
• Normal fluctuations can sometimes be steep, where it's unintended and the gold seller receives the funds with a slight difference. This time can vary, but the MOST that I have seen any payment processor for Bitcoin do is having to RECEIVE the funds within 15 hours.
• The normal fee can also be considered an amount within the default range of the most popular exchanges/processors. Anything lower or higher should be discussed. If someone sends it within the normal fee and the above two issues still happen, then the sender can't really be held at fault.
• If the trade was discussed in BTC amount and not in USD amount, then it should just be the BTC amount, regardless of the value when it arrives.

Yep, pretty basic logic here. It's highly deceptive. Thing is though, it could also technically go up in value. If it takes 2 weeks to arrive and then it's worth double, it could create a situation that's problematic. But again, it's a situation the sender created. In cases like this I think it would be fair for the sender to request some of it back unless the BTC amount was clearly discussed, basically same concept, as long as they cover fees and bring it up very quickly.

So I don't think minimums should be defined either but a user should be protected if they do send a reasonable fee, because there are situations where it gets stuck unknowingly if there's a huge fluctuation and volume shift.

But I also don't think it should be required people on Sythe start writing contracts for every little thing. There needs to be "good faith" involved for a lot of things. And the staff only seem to do this when they want, and ignore it when they want. I mean Prizford was banned because they thought he was acting in bad faith, even though is was in my opinion really stupid how he was banned, this is an example of staff clearly having the power, but deciding to use it for evil instead of good. With QBD, they assumed someone was acting in bad faith even though all the rules pointed to him basically being owed a refund since QBD was hacked and he's responsible. With Bert, they assumed UKF was acting in bad faith even though he wasn't because he delayed something he didn't even NEED to do, but did out of courtesy.

CLEARLY the staff have been using this power all this time, why not, until it's ever revised to where they don't have no checks on their powers, use it for good?

There are plenty of rules/non-rules they can go off too as a starting position:

• False or Misleading Advertising: Your sales/purchase threads must be accurate and updated promptly to reflect your actual prices/offers. If you advertise an offer significantly different to your actual prices then this is false advertising. Comment: it could easily be seen as false advertising or being misleading. Unless they said somewhere delivery of BTC funds may take up to 2 weeks or whatever and that the prices received will vary
• Trade with Caution. Comment: this is given out for whatever ranging from basically almost scamming to using a VPN, to anything that can be considered a risk. It is definitely a risk to someone to trade with a person doing this with payments so it should be considered as an option.
• In rare cases where there is no fitting rule a new rule may be established by precedent - Comment: this is probably what's abused and misused by staff the most, but it means even if there's no fitting rule for this it's clearly a malicious/negative thing to do, whether or not intended to harm someone, so a staff could easily be established by precedent. I'm sure the moving of goalposts wouldn't be hard for staff.

And I won't quote the spamming rule specifically, but this hardly includes all the possible scams, and it says "or any suspicious behavior similar to scamming." This rule gets stretched out to basically include a customer not being satisfied with the delivery of a website or it being delivered late, and it gets applied when people still owe money, so why can't it be applied here?

TLDR just read this:

With all that said, AT THE VERY LEAST, if someone did not receive their payment yet, they didn't receive it yet. Even if it's in transit, it is not received. So someone should be able to make a report and have the other person get a temporary TWC/DNT as a precaution until the payment does clear. People have gotten these as a precaution for much less in the past. No additional rule is necessary.

 

No i totally agree with that, Absolutely all that needs to be made apparent and agreed upon before any transfer of anything is done.

 

I believe it should be based on "good faith" too, but there should be something written to ensure transactions can be pushed through if there is blockchain congestion.

The issue with this rule is staff will make a one-time decision, but don't establish it as precedent by not writing it into the rules. This allows staff to change their stance on a case-by-case basis, which is not how the law works.

 

Fam it shouldnt take 2 weeks to arrive is the point... Read my entire post please.

The only person at risk is the seller since the buyer can send low fees and the only person who loses is the buyer if it goes down. Of course it can go up but if the buyer doesnt want that to happen just pay the normal fees and stop making people wait 2 weeks.

 

Wasn't disagreeing with you, was just stating the only counter-point/dilemma it could create and I also did agree with you that it's basically the sender's fault for even creation that situation.

So going back to your milk analogy, if it comes late and it's spoilt that's one thing but the other thing could be even if it wasn't out of the sender's generosity, what if instead of the milk you received 2 jugs of milk and it's not spoiled because it's ultra-pasteurized/sealed (so you receive a better value/more.) It's only logical if the sender told you hey, I messed up, I sent you 2 jugs of milk, and they're not even spoiled (didn't devalue) can you send one back, I'll cover shipping, for you to consider sending it back. And then of course you can still leave them bad feedback saying it took 2 weeks, but you got your jug of unspoiled milk so you didn't lose anything.

 

Well the reason its even a dilemma at this point is because buyers are having to pay more in fees which means they want people to wait 1-2 weeks so they can save $10 on a transaction which is understandable in certain situations.

Regarding the milk analogy, its more along the lines of if it was instant as it has usually been there wouldnt be a question about it spoiling.

We have to look at this in terms of A: The buyer is trying to be cheap and make someone wait 2 weeks they should accept the risk if they want to save $10 right now.. They shouldnt be given the choice of making someone wait 2 weeks to save $10-15 on a fee.. If they do choose to do that they should #1 ask the seller if they are comfortable with waiting and #2 accept the risk that btc will drop thus for paying them extra.. They shouldnt be in full control of the trade by saying "well if it goes up in 2 weeks you actually owe me more money" but if a seller says "sure i can wait 2 weeks NP" then they should accept the risk of btc crashing..

It shouldnt be up to the buyer going "well ima fuck you for $10 but if you dont get fucked and the btc goes up then you owe me" .. Imagine waiting 2 weeks so someone can save $10 and then you end up owing them $ because you had to wait 2 weeks so they could profit more.

 

Exactly, @Zora

If its on purpose and the buyer is trying to actively avoid paying the regular fees then its on them, the seller really has no choice in the matter and im sure if they did they wouldnt want to wait 2 weeks for the payment.

Sometimes the chain gets busy but it doesnt stay busy 24/7 for 2 weeks straight, you can almost always catch a low SAT fee at a point in the day which means the blocks cleared up and the payments would go out.

Guess its going to come down to the margins needing to increase to acclimate to the fees.

Yellow Hat

 

Definitely don't support, adding rules like this disincentivizes market activity in a supposed free market.

Brings up alot more complications than benefits, how am I meant to recuperate a 20% increase on a 10k$ transaction? Basically just makes it so that people trade on alt discords with 0 links to them and if bitcoin drops, ask for the difference, if bitcoin increases just run.

Also how will it work in terms of fees?

So for example I send you 1000$, goes down 100$, I send you 100$, goes down 10$, I send you 10$, goes down 1$, I send you 1$, goes down 10c, I send you 10c? Is that how the cycle will work in a hypothetical situation?

Some gold sellers even basically flip gold to short bitcoin for minimal taxes (eg Pingy). Doing this would drive away gold sellers, cause more scam reports / even more rule changes.

Basically sythe is terrible at adhering to a rule, and will bend it as beneficial to them, I don't see it being viable in a practical setting.

 

No support , this is something we can't control in this business.

 

No support for a presumption of liability.

I. If no terms of settled, the requester of payment should assume the inherent risks associated with the cryptocurrency they chose.

The sender is only responsible for sending the correct amount of BTC relative to USD, or other currencies, value at the time of sale to the correct BTC address.

Likened to FOB shipment of physical goods. The seller of the item (in this case equivalent to the sender of BTC), is only responsible for taking the items in correct shape on the freight vessel in the specified port. What happens to the shipment while that boat goes from Port A to Port Z has nothing to do with the seller/sender. You buy insurance if you have concerns. In this case, your insurance is either specifying the terms you want as a buyer/receiver, or to choose a more appropriate cryptocurrency for your expectations of the transaction.

After that, it is outside the control of the sender. The entire reason we use Cryptocurrency is that the transaction is handled by anonymous de-centralized miners. This is an inherent risk to using BTC. It is your responsibility to check what the status of BTC transactions, time, fees is at the time of the transaction.

If you don't like it, choose a different Cryptocurrency with lower times/fees? Isn't this the entire point of different cryptocurrencies to choose from? BTC is not a standard currency, it is one of many that can be traded back into BTC, USD, or other coins.

If you want BTC because you need it for other transactions (in other words, you insist on using BTC to save yourself fees on other subsequent and irrelevant [to the sender/seller] transaction at hand) it should be assumed you're assuming the inherent risks of using that currency because you essentially created a contract specifying what manner you wanted to be paid in.

Receiver options:
(1) Do your due diligence when choosing crypto and choose the right coin - whatever you choose, accept inherent risk.
OR
(2) Specify your expectations and requirements in contractual terms.

As a matter of general policy, regulating this aspect of the free market will give rise to unnecessary and lengthy arbitration by Sythe which is a huge waste of resources when options (1) and (2)

II. IF modification or policy-based regulation is to be placed on this aspect of transactions, it should not be based on "adequate" fees as it will give rise to unnecessary and lengthy arbitration - therefore, regulation, if necessary, should be done so by adequate notice or disclosure.

Regulating it by anything objectively numerical as a nominal value is moot as nominal values will depreciate or appreciate over time.

Regulating by percentage as a fee suffers from the same issue and is arbitrary.

The best method of regulating this, if deemed necessary, is to require an adequate disclosure of fees prior to sending.

Ex: Hi, I'm going to send you $500 BTC which is 0.01 BTC, I am sending an extra 0.0002 BTC for fees which equals $1.00 USD for a total of 0.0102 BTC worth $501.00 at the present time. Do you understand and agree?

>Yes.
>No litigation needed regardless of outcome.

Best,
VGP

 

terms aren't required / don't matter as mentioned by an admin here : [Resolved]

everything is subjective and interpretable as you want depending what is in your benefit per sythe rulings

 

Hence the need for "terms"
Perhaps this is a broader issue warranting a broader discussion of general policy. Upholding contracts with no terms is basically the worst nightmare a court can deal with.
(1) Usually they will just throw it out and say good luck.
(2) In extreme cases of injustice promissory estoppel doctrine is invoked. Note, this is extremely rare, discouraged, and subject to scrutiny upon review based on abuse of discretion.

Best,
VGP

 

@Gladiator
We discussed this briefly today and think it has effectively been covered by our updates here: A lot of updates