Require crypto amounts to be discussed while trading

Describe the problem:
Looking at a thread like this, it just seems soo immaterial: Yanlili Big Naughty
I personally think a dispute like this becomes a waste of Sythe mods time and creates unnecessary bad reputations. This can easily be caused by the difference between crypto prices at exchanges/wallets.

What current rule(s) tackle this problem:
There is no rule.

Explain the change:
I think that we should require a specific crypto and coin amount to be discussed during trading. If the amount is not discussed during trading, a dispute can only be made if it makes a material difference or is obviously short paid (e.g. maybe <$5 is ignored? Open to that being suggested/tweaked)

Explain why this change will fix the problem:
It will prevent disputes like this over $0.17 which is simply a waste of everyone's time involved.

Side-effects:
I guess it could be abused by senders to short send $1 or $2 at a time which could add up to more profit for them, however, this could also be addressed by allowing disputes if it happens more than x amount of times.

 

The way this reads to me is that it's about GP rates being inclusive of crypto sending fees, not specifically the amount of crypto you send vs the actual price at the time of sale.

Arbitrage trading in the crypto markets exist because of the discrepancy of the price of crypto between exchanges and I think to avoid negligible disputes like that, something should be said to address it.

For example below, Coinbase vs Binance pricing.
If the specific coin amount isn't stated then depending on the exchange you use, you may feel like you were short-paid, which enable users to create negligible disputes that imo (no offense) is a waste of time for a transaction that likely occurred in good faith.

 

I understand the argument with non-stable coins.

if someone is shortchanging you on a stablecoin, it’s unethical even if it’s $0.1.

if you do it enough times, it warrants a TWC imo

 

That’s exactly how these guys operate and how they want you to think. It’s crumb-money, sure, but it adds up. For 250 trades a day, skimming an average of .20$ per trade (and believe me, that's lenient given the stuff that I'm hearing lol), that’s 50 dollars a day for doing nothing.

And trust me, these Chinese flippers will fight for every cent.

If it’s intentional, it’s a scam, no matter the amount.

 

As for your suggestion:

1. I don’t really get what you mean by "requiring a specific crypto". It's standard practice to agree to a crypto + network prior to a trade, no?

2. Amount: that's already Status Quo and something parties can do. If parties agree to "2 LTC for 1b", and 2 LTC is received, the deal is fulfilled — regardless LTC/USD value.

3. Ignoring small underpayments is a gateway for abuse. Big flippers will absolutely exploit a <$5 free-pass.

 

Yes I agree - but how can we ever prove if it's intentional vs the difference in exchange prices? A $100 difference in BTC between exchanges is a $0.10 difference on an ~$80-90 trade at this time. Are we going to call that a scam? I feel like we shouldn't as long as it's done in good faith. I don't know how we could ever prove otherwise.

This is essentially what I mean. Say that I'm selling 1B and I want $150. If I'm receiving LTC I should be asking for 1.82LTC and not $150USD. If I receive that 1.82LTC then the trade is good, if I receive less, the trade is bad.

When we use USD for non stable coins then it leaves the door open for market fluctuations and/or, as you suggested, abuse.

I agree that this part of the suggestion is not strong and could easily be abused. Hoping to open the door for some sort of other suggestions but I think it's solved by, if you're receiving money in crypto that the trade should be done at a GP/Crypto rate vs a GP/USD rate.

 

Don't think that positive change will be the result of new rules. The best we can do is raise awareness (which is kind of what you're doing with this thread)

I also think that as long as there is no deterrent action against these kinds of practices, big traders will continue these practices

 

I actually think it's on the seller to tell the buyer exactly what they want and how they want it. This protects their best interests in ensuring that they receive the amount they are happy with. As a seller I think it's our responsibility to ensure we communicate the exact amount we want and not letting price fluctuations or fees impact that.

In honesty until now I would have always said I wanted that $150, but at this point it makes most sense to me to ensure that I get the exact amount that I expect to get, I'll be asking for the 1.82LTC as it's clear on both ends what the expectation is for the trade and the payment amount.

 

So what are you proposing?

That if the party selling the 07 doesn’t specify (if and) the exact amount of cryptoassets they want, they’re basically fair game to receive less?

As I said earlier, that will be abused. Parties should simply honour their agreements and if not, they should be held to that. Simple as it is.

 

The problem with the way it is now is that it opens up the ability to make disputes over what could be a result of price difference between exchanges. They may very well believe that they are honouring the agreement, however, due to price differences it shows as a short payment.

Like I said earlier, if you have a Coinbase account and somebody else has a Binance account and there is a $100 difference in the price of BTC then on a ~$200 trade it can easily result in a $0.20 short payment where both parties acted in good faith. Why would it be fair to dispute somebody for that?

Additionally, would anybody be expected to send back $0.20 because their exchange had a better price than the purchaser? I'd assume not.

Because of this, I'm proposing that the seller has to state the exact amount of the crypto asset they want and if they don't, then as long as it's not an egregious short payment then yes, it's fair game. What is defined as "egregious" can be left to somebody else to decide.

On top of this to address the abuse side of it, I do believe that there could be a clause to this proposed rule that states that if it's a common occurrence to short send that it can be disputed.

 

Fair point. Spreads and arbitrage exist, but that doesn’t justify short payments. Price differences between major exchanges are generally tiny, so they will all still show clearly whether the seller underpaid. We’re talking cents, not percentages. Using "different exchange prices" as a blanket defense is therefore just a way to give sellers a built-in excuse to shave a bit off each trade.
Sure, in an ideal world parties would always agree on X LTC instead of $X worth of LTC. But it’s neither realistic nor desirable to force everyone into one specific contract form.

When it comes to stocks and disputes in practice, if no price source was agreed upon, arbiters and judges typically rely on a reasonable average price around the relevant moment (e.g., a few minutes around the trade).

So if there’s a dispute, our Sythe-arbiters can opt to use a neutral reference (for example, an average of some major exchanges at the time of the trade) and compare that to the on-chain amount (just like I'm doing in my dispute by referring to blockchair).

 

That’s a fair point. This happens when parties don’t agree on a clear completion time.
Would you want to standardize that in the built-in contract as well, @Malcolm ? Do you see where this is going?

 

I don't see the issue in this as at the same time the price could increase by $0.20 and never come back down (or at least not come back down for quite some time). I don't think buyer's can't reliably use this.

This is also something that the seller should be aware of as well as once they agree to x LTC at any point in time, that price of LTC can change.

I think if anything to address this it would be an unreasonable delay in sending payment (e.g. time from trade vs time funds actually sent) that also had a price decrease in it.

At the same time though if a buyer took GP for LTC and the price of LTC went up significantly they'd still be on the hook for the agreed crypto asset amount, not the specific USD amount at the time of sending so there is risk for the buyer to do this which could be a deterrent in itself but I think something about timing of trade vs fund sent would be good to include if we went this direction.

 

Unfortunately, there are some people in the market who notoriously under-send, which with whom we stopped doing business entirely at this point due to that, id suggest adding a x strike system for under sending.

x in a 7/30 day period = TWC
Something needs to be done to at least slap these people on the wrist & potentially define a baseline evaluation of crypto / usd values to reference platformwide for this type of disputes.

 

in that case buyer lost anyway cus his whole port will go down $ wise its not like they buy ltc right before they send it.

Better question is why yall who care abaut .2$ so much dont just accept payment in stables ?

 

Regardless of payment method used, buyer is responsible for fees associated with the trade.

When I pay a supplier in EUROS (I'm GBP)... They are expecting the invoice to be paid in full regardless of what exchange rate / currency broker I use.

Why is crypto any different?

But yes take payment in something stable if your worried too much about fluctuations between trades.

 

Its not about fluctuations, people who notoriously undersend blame the lower received amount on fluctuations, even when the price went up between agreement & sending

 

Yeah there was a very good point made about people who notoriously under send and basically use it as a way to do slightly better on their purchases as over time the miniscule amount adds up when it's a lot of volume traded.

This is why I think it's important to state that the trade is for 1.5BTC/LTC/ETH/etc as opposed to the USD amount so it's very clear what the trade expectation is and it removes the ability to under send like this.