[Approved] RE: Fees must be discussed and agreed upon before a trade

In regards to these two posts:

This suggestion is not about whether you agree or disagree that the seller is now liable for price fluctuations. There is an exception to this rule, as Video mentioned above. You would have to state at what rate you send the crypto.

My suggestion is simple: make stating 'I will send the crypto with a coinbase/blockchain standard fee' good enough.

Especially for Coinbase, you don't know what fee Coinbase will use when sending to an address.
They always send with high fees, so we seldom see any problems with it. However, if it doesn't confirm within 2 hours due to a sudden high trade volume, the seller would take exrta unfair risks.

 

Generally agree with some extra context @Zora :

To me the ideal construction is:

General rule:
Whatever fee parties agree to. Agreeing to a fee can be equivalent to sending party stating the fee and receiving party not disputing this.

Exception to the general rule:
Whenever there is a transaction without an agreement on fees, if the transaction takes longer than X amount of time, sending party is liable for price-fluctuations. Here Video defined X to be two hours. I can find myself in that.

Note:
I think it's important to create discretion for what is understood to be an agreement. So stating a fee and that not being disputed should be enough imo. Otherwise, the sending party will be put in an unfavorable situation because the receiving party will be able to dispute the fee in retrospect, even though he had the chance to do this before the transaction occurred. I think this is important to take into consideration.
It's also important that such an agreement happens before the transaction has started of course.

What to watch out for?
If the sending party immediately sends the BTC and (almost) at the same time notifies the receiving party of the fees, then I would say that the receiving party has not had the chance to dispute the fee.

The measure for staff should really be:
has the receiving party had a proper chance to dispute the fee in the situation where the sending party has notified him?

 

I agree with @Zora , I use coinbase and video reply was very concerning for me as you never know what fee is with coinbase, I support the suggestion and I support extending the 2 hour limit to 24 hour

 

Meh, if someone just sends BTC without talking about fees then it's more than reasonable to expect the BTC within shorter time margins. Not 24 hours. You always assume nothing special is going on when someone doesn't notify something important. 24 hours is just too long of a period, not only because of the volatility of BTC impacting it, but also because someone simply might be expecting the money to pay off a third party.

If you want to avoid the headache and you expect the transaction to take longer than 2 hours, just notify the other party of the fees you're sending. That doesn't seem like something too hard to do

 

I think this is already the case with the current rule.
To quote the rule 'Fees must be confirmed before the trade. In the event a fee is not discussed'. But it's somewhat subjective. Some clarrification can be good here.

Therefore I am suggesting that simply stating 'I send from my Coinbase wallet. I can not choose the fee but they generally send with high fees.' should be enough here. There is no standard rate for Coinbase.

Well I think some standard should be set. It prevents people from sending with an extremely low fee. I fully get the frustration the high fees bring, and even then it can take a while to confirm. I think a simple statement/tos beforehand doesn't hurt, but I think stating the exact fee is problematic.

 

I'd be fine with this change. The spirit of the new rule is really just encouraging people to talk about fees beforehand. If both parties agree that whatever Coinbase's fee is right now is fine, that's fine by me. Really what we want to see less of is people not discussing fees and then sending tiny fees thereby delaying payment to an excessive degree, and I think this language change reflects that.

 

Approved here: https://www.sythe.org/threads/a-lot-of-updates/