Quote from: Nicol3 on September 29, 2017, 01:54:47 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.

If the buyers will be compensated then how will the company earn, that's why there are always agreements for every businesses so they can make a decision and meet half way to their agreement.

Yea. Before they come up with the decision of paying compensations to the buyers there must be a process to be done before jumping into this. Let us not forget that in the moment of disagreement between buyer and seller, they both have to enter into a chat (conversation) to settle the dispute and if the disagreement is still not settled a middle man from utrust has to join their chat and be an arbiter between the teo and then find the best possible solution to settle the dispute and give best options whis is good for both buyer and seller. As much as possible the buyer should recover it's payment if the item purchased is not received.