There are 2 sides to the problem. If you've ever run an online storefront, you know the frustration of scummy buyers who submit a chargeback after receiving their order. Sellers would prefer cash-like transactions that can't be reversed.
I don't think it's ideal to have the financial system effectively arbitrating disputes between buyers and sellers. If you bought something that didn't arrive or wasn't as expected, there needs to be a way to resolve the problem, but having a financial system that lets you request to reverse the payment and forces the bank to decide who's right, just doesn't seem great. I don't know what the better alternative is, but I'm sure there's room for improvement.
Yeah. I don't want anyone between me and my customer. I prefer to build trust.
Thread collapsed
2 party escrow doesn't allow chargebacks or reversals. It locks the money until both parties come to an agreement. The buyer initializes a payment, which locks the money in a provable fashion, & the money cannot be called back or claimed by the seller until both parties come to some sort of agreement.
This was the norm on the Silk Road & early darknet markets.
Thread collapsed
When the customer buys a wallet for 150k⚡️as listed haven't we already reached an agreement?
Sure, and there is no reason that you can't continue to require full payment upfront, but there are inevitably going to be spam problems with new sellers making listings just to collect payments & disappear without shipping or producing anything. We need a way to create some sort of hedged risk transactions to keep both sides honest. Sellers need proof the money is on its way, & buyers need a way to prevent sellers from running off with the money and sending them nothing.
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed