Quote from: cantdecide on September 29, 2017, 01:54:12 PM

Quote from: toolucky98 on September 29, 2017, 01:19:45 PM

Quote from: cantdecide on September 29, 2017, 11:07:38 AM

Quote from: niklasmato on September 29, 2017, 08:17:43 AM

Quote from: Rigorous on September 28, 2017, 10:18:41 PM

Quote from: Nargiza on September 28, 2017, 09:41:01 PM

Quote from: Rigorous on September 28, 2017, 08:52:40 PM

Quote from: Nargiza on September 28, 2017, 08:49:17 PM

Hello again sorry that I am a little bit annoying today. But I don't fully understand. WP page 18 last paragraph about refunds? So if buyer will be refunded the fees will go to 2 % it's correct?

The way I read it, there will be an additional fee of 2% on top of any other fees. I think that 2% fee is used to (partly) cover the cost of the UTRUST operator.

So the buyer loses its 2 % even is not his/her foult Huh

Yep. That is how it is described in the illustration. The buyer pays 2% resolution escalation fee regardless of whose fault it was. I suspect that is because the smart contract is designed like that it takes a portion of the escrowed money. The seller did not put any money in escrow, so there is no money to take a fee from.

It's not really fair towards the buyer but I do understand why Utrust needs to do this. Besides I've read in the Whitepaper that the seller will get some punishment as well. So it's kinda fair.

Well I also can understand that this is somehow needed, but I think there should be a better solution. I mean, why should someone pay for something he has no fault in? That's, in my eyes, the wrong way, even if the seller in this situation will get a negative feedback then.

If thats true, buyers will suffer losses with certainty.
I think it would be better if they get compensation.

Compensation or no payment if it is not their fault. Otherwise I really can't see why they should pay for something they haven't done.

It would be nice if someone of uTrust can clarify this issue. I think this is certainly not a showstopper although there should be some more info.
I personally think that the buyer should not be penalised if it's not his fault. If the fault lies with the seller, then the seller should be penalised. If it's the buyer who is doing something wrong, then yes I totally agree that the 2% should be coming from the buyer.