Quote from: kraterion on October 08, 2017, 12:32:25 PM

Quote from: lw75 on October 08, 2017, 10:25:26 AM

Quote from: bitsurfer2014 on October 07, 2017, 02:53:39 PM

I'm excited to see the mediated chat mode being utilized for the efficient resolution of disputes. I think its a great feature from UTRUST.

If understood correctly the whitepaper explains that in such dispute buyer is going to carry the weight by paying 2% mediation cost to UTRUST. Now imagine a large amount of value involved.. Not a pretty perspective to say the least.
I asked UTRUST what a strange policy they plan on using here but have not received an answer. Also nobody but one responded to my earlier post about it. Did anyone really take it in and have an opinion? Not a biggie to you?

And as their mediator is probably a real person it will be interesting to know what guidelines they follow and over time the reputation of dispute outcomes. Things like human error, benefit of doubt and partiality come to mind. I'm just curious how UTRUST is going to effectively protect buyers and not make money quite literally off their backs. Honestly, I wonder if Paypal had this exact policy implemented where a buyer pays mediation fee, would they be a great deal less popular.

Penny for your thoughts..

When I opened a dispute on PayPal I really don't recall if I paid a mediation fee. But btw, my thought about this is, the most fair move is to ask for that 2% only if they solve your dispute, I'll be ok with that but I'm not so sure if I'll agree with a fee payment in advance

i still think if there is really a problem, not caused by the buyer itself, he/she shouldn't pay the fee, instead it should be payed by the party which is causing the problem. Like if the buyer is the problem, he/she pays, like if the seller is the problem, he/she should pay. If the problem is just a communication problem or what ever it should be 50/50.