[Denied] Community repayment change

Pikachu · Oct 9, 2021

currently, with community repayment, you can't get a refund if you have done any of the following trade errors:

Impostor scams

Dicing scams

Double-spending scams

Account-for-account trades

Click to expand...

Most of them are due to incompetents of the traders, which I don't believe a user should get a refund for, but dicing in my opinion shouldn't be on this list due to it practically being a trade and my suggestion to allow dicing scams to be refunded due to it being essentially the same as any other trade, to the point that you're trusting another user, while the rest are due to incompetent of the trade, with use also having quite a large community repayment, I think that there shouldn't be an issue with refunds for these types of scam, this wouldn't benefit me in anyway for what it worth, so my suggestion is change the list of non-refundable items to:

Impostor scams

Double-spending scams

Account-for-account trades

Click to expand...

We could even implement a lower refund for the dicing scam as well. or limit it to donor lounge only

Edit to be clear, I am only suggesting refunds for dicing not any of the other stuff.

Devil · Oct 6, 2021

It would be too easy to abuse the CRF system if we allowed imposter, dicing, double spending scams to be part of it.

No support.

Pikachu · Oct 6, 2021

Devil said: ↑

It would be too easy to abuse the CRF system if we allowed imposter, dicing, double spending scams to be part of it.

No support.
Click to expand...

I could make a fake discord and sythe account right now and "scam myself", the community repayment fund can be abused regardless., it's harder to do dicing than it is to fake a normal scam if we limited it to dicing lounge, the only thing I am suggesting is to allow dicing to be clear.

Trey · Oct 7, 2021

Agree with Pikachu. Anyone could abuse the CRF if they really wanted to. I don't see dicing scams to be any different. There's already limitations as to when someone can apply for community repayment such as the victim's Sythe account being 6 months old and the report being 2 months old. You could potentially add that the perpetrators account also had to be X months old prior to the scam in order to be eligible for a dicing, imposter, etc scam. I think that's a bit overkill, but it's an option.

If the CRF has excess funds then why not open it up to these other types of scams for now. Revaluate later if needed.

Russian_killer1337 · Oct 8, 2021

No support.

PaulieYeahYeah · Oct 8, 2021

100% support Pikachu here! Every other thing on the list is very avoidable.

Poat · Oct 8, 2021

I agree with ABM in the sense that the system can already be abused as there are no limitations on who qualifies as a scammer for you to be eligible for repayment and no hold dicing or even hosted dicing as it stands is based off of trust the same way you going first to PAK for a 1b sale is.

And I'm sure the amazing moderator team would be able to snuff out potential abusers of the system when 2 $5 donors with 0 trades on sythe start dicing $500 against each other then 2 months later submit a CRF claim.

for that reason I support users who have been scammed by people dicing should be repaid just as people who have been scammed by gold traders are.