Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Encourage usage of Bonded Reputation by calculating a score for all offers #138

Open
wiz opened this issue Nov 11, 2019 · 15 comments
Open

Encourage usage of Bonded Reputation by calculating a score for all offers #138

wiz opened this issue Nov 11, 2019 · 15 comments

Comments

@wiz
Copy link
Member

@wiz wiz commented Nov 11, 2019

This is a Bisq Network proposal. Please familiarize yourself with the submission and review process.

Background

The Bisq DAO has a really cool but completely unused feature called Bonded Reputation. It allows you to lock-up any amount of BSQ for any amount of time, tied to your cryptographic identity. While the BSQ is locked up, anyone can make a DAO proposal to confiscate your BSQ bond, allowing you to stake BSQ for reputation. Contributors who perform bonded roles for the Bisq DAO have also locked up BSQ to stake their reputation.

Proposal

Calculate and display a 0 to 5 score rating for all traders, and display it next to all of their trade offers, next to their avatar. For example something like this:

☆☆☆☆☆ # user has <1X BSQ bonded or bond is for <1Y days
★★★☆☆ # user has >3X BSQ bonded and bond is for >3Y days
★★★★★ # user has >5X BSQ bonded and bond is for >5Y days

Parameters could be configured, for example:
X = 1000
Y = 30

Implementation

  • The score of 0 to 5 will be calculated from a blend of both the amount of BSQ and the lock time of the user's bond(s). Bonds which have less than 30 days of lock-time will be ignored.

  • The icon should indicate the maximum score if the user performs a bonded role for the DAO, since they are trusted by the DAO as a contributor.

  • Allow sorting the table by bonded reputation amounts/times, and make this the secondary sort order after price (i.e. if two offers have the same price, the bonded traders' offers would appear higher)

  • Add an option to disable or hide offers from users who have a Bonded Reputation Score less than X.

  • Display the Bonded Reputation Score to mediators and arbitrators during trade disputes.

Other use cases

  • In the event of certain network events, the user's Bonded Reputation Score could be used to prioritize their mailbox messages.

  • For risky payment methods, such as F2F cash trades, we could require minimum Reputation Scores to create offers for certain countries.

  • Probably lots of other use cases!

@mpolavieja

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@mpolavieja mpolavieja commented Nov 13, 2019

I like this proposal a lot.

  • Add an option to disable or hide offers from users who have a Bonded Reputation Score less than X.

This is probably the most delicate part of the proposal. I think that active users of fiat payment methods will be very interested on protecting their bank accounts from interacting with untrustworthy peers. This feauture would be very useful for this, but at the same time it would split liquidity.

@ghost

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@ghost ghost commented Nov 19, 2019

This proposal benefit the BSQ rich users. It also implies an unnecessary dependency to DAO and likely Github users as well. This makes Bisq trading a more dependent and centralized solution. Furthermore we think this is negative for exchange liquidity, which is poor as it is.

@shawnyeager

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@shawnyeager shawnyeager commented Nov 23, 2019

I can only hypothesize for the general user base, but for me, the greatest friction/hesitation is fear of an unscrupulous trader. Reputation seems the obvious way to alleviate that concern.

@ghost

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@ghost ghost commented Nov 23, 2019

I can only hypothesize for the general user base, but for me, the greatest friction/hesitation is fear of an unscrupulous trader. Reputation seems the obvious way to alleviate that concern.

For the general user base a neutral reputation system is needed. What metrics are available? Account age and number of trades. The latter is only partially implemented and could be used more instead of narrowing the user base with bonds.

@m52go

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

@m52go m52go commented Nov 23, 2019

For the general user base a neutral reputation system is needed.

I think a variety of mechanisms are needed. Deposits and account aging were the original ones, and they've worked reasonably well. Account signing is another one, and additional methods for getting accounts signed are in the works. Bonding is another. Perhaps there will be more. In this case, I think variety is good. Over time we'll learn what tends to work better.

Bonding strikes me as particularly elegant, as it completely avoids the mess of dealing with fiat banking that account signing has to handle, yet provides even stronger protections.

I happen to think an additional confidence mechanism like this would be positive for liquidity, especially if it's one active market makers would prefer.

This proposal benefit the BSQ rich users.

You can "buy in" to the network with time (account aging and single-account signing) or with identity (2FA account signing). This proposal would simply add a financial means to the mix. To my knowledge, BSQ is available to anyone who wants it, and this proposal wouldn't force anyone to use it, so I see this as a shallow criticism.

@chimp1984

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@chimp1984 chimp1984 commented Nov 23, 2019

@Bisq2People

number of trades

That could be easily gamed by self-trades.

@ghost

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@ghost ghost commented Nov 25, 2019

Bonds are heavy committments. With BSQ bonds it is equal to membership stakes = centralisation.

@m52go

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

@m52go m52go commented Nov 25, 2019

@Bisq2People how much of a bond is too heavy of a commitment? 10 000 BSQ? 500 BSQ? 50 BSQ? Is the "heaviness" of a commitment something you alone can determine, or does it vary from person to person? Is such a commitment still "heavy" if there are other options for the user, and they're not compelled to use it? How are bonds "equal to membership stakes" if anyone, contributor or not, can buy BSQ?

@ghost

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@ghost ghost commented Nov 25, 2019

Now if one doesn't can or doesn't want to participate one is "null". And one is going to show it in a dispute to gain more trust. Honestly?!? Also please see the difference in buying a trade token and holding a bond or stake.

@m52go

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

@m52go m52go commented Nov 25, 2019

@Bisq2People you didn't even try to answer my questions. To me, your unwillingness to clarify your own statements indicates your feedback isn't serious.

Therefore, I am forced to disregard your posts as unproductive noise ✌️

@ghost

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@ghost ghost commented Nov 25, 2019

It is your own questions. I don't have to answer them. You are talking to a customer now...

@chimp1984

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@chimp1984 chimp1984 commented Nov 25, 2019

@Bisq2People From your style and behaviour it seems you are the same person who got banned recently. You are welcome to contribute to Bisq but please take feedback from people who work already long time on Bisq and have produced a lot of value serious. Most of those contributors disagree and even don't see any sense in your proposals and ideas. This leads to the situation that you occupy time/energy/space for those who do real work on Bisq. Try to formulate your ideas in a rational well articulated way so others can follow it. Have respect for things you might not fully understand. Most of us are not posting on the Bitcoin Core mailing list because we respect that this is a space for highly knowledgeable developers and most of us do not feel to be competent enough that we should participate there. That does not mean we are dumb, it is just a matter or respect.

If you do not change your attitude I fear we need to unfortunately ban you again. Github is our work area and pointless content feels like spam.

@ghost

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@ghost ghost commented Nov 25, 2019

Me and others are providing feedback and just trying to help. I can leave and cancel my issues now myself instead.

@eigentsmis

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@eigentsmis eigentsmis commented Dec 6, 2019

This is a very interesting proposal which I think would definitely put more people at ease regarding trades currently seen as high risk. On the other hand it could potentially introduce a new "attack" vector to be used by malicious users.
Overall I think it's at least a worthwhile experiment to get out there and see how the market reacts. I would also try to implement it as frictionless as possible to market liquidity (ie. would probably avoid hiding offers and adding other such "hard" filters, at least to begin with)...again, market will decide.

@MwithM

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@MwithM MwithM commented Dec 7, 2019

This looks like a nice way to explore how Bisq v2 would work. There's one thing that worries me though.
Looks like this proposal is not considering trading volumes for each user: If I bond 1btc while I'm trading 20btc (in ten or more separate trades), the bond is not covering very much, while I guess that a bond of that quantity would guarantee me 5 stars in very little time. I suppose that this proposal does not intend to cover all possible costs, but if Bonded Reputation is just a signal of good will, it would generate a false sensation of security.

The icon should indicate the maximum score if the user performs a bonded role for the DAO, since they are trusted by the DAO as a contributor.

Usually, bonded roles have high stakes for many time. There are not many contributors with bonded roles. Signalling them in the app is a good measure for their privacy? Unless this bond is already something everybody can know matching Bisq client's information, this doesn't add very much value (they would already have 5 stars) while is compromising privacy.
Also, locked bonded role is supposed to cover the expense of mismanagement of their role. The contributor should lock another separate bond for trading. There could be a discount in the price of the Bonded Reputation.

For risky payment methods, such as F2F cash trades, we could require minimum Reputation Scores to create offers for certain countries.

F2F payouts are very difficult to judge because there's no way to provide reliable proof of payment, so DAO wouldn't have a way to decide what to vote. The only way bonded reputation would make sense for this payment method is if both traders agree to a mutual assured destruction protocol, meaning both of them should lose something if one of them wants, and that could be done just with trade deposits.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
7 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.