Quote from: ScarceCity on January 13, 2024, 06:27:51 PM

Hey all, Chris from Scarce City here.

I appreciate the comments. These types of threads help us find opportunities for improvement. I'll address some of the points of confusion and concerns, as well share some solutions we're implementing.

First, regarding the United Nodes auction -- the piece is not in our possession and it was fully communicated to the seller that it was a No Reserve auction. For these types of sales, we've required sellers to have a strong Twitter/BT reputation and relied on them to act in the interest of maintaining their reputation to deliver the goods according to auction terms. I'm still hopeful that LitLit will act in the interest of their reputation and come through on the sale but the doubt raised has made it clear that our reputation system is not enough.

Effective immediately, sellers with reputations that are at all questionable will be required to deposit BTC collateral with their auctions or escrow (with MJ). They'll forfeit their collateral if they do not deliver the goods and escrowed items will be delivered to the buyer, according to auction terms.

Re starting reserve prices, we allow them in some circumstances -- for artists who are voted into our artist group (by other artists), for events where the event organizer is curating the auctions, and for some multi-edition auctions. Otherwise, our auctions are No Reserve. The reason is we put a ton of work into curating auctions, crafting auction pages, and promoting EVERY auction across our newsletter, twitter, and telegram. It only makes sense for us to put in that work if the item sells. Also, through the thousands of auctions we've run, we've seen that No Reserve auction perform better on average and are way more fun to participate in.

That said, we understand that starting reserve prices make sense for some auctions and are building an option for that (outside of Scarce.City). In the meantime, sellers have the option to list items in our marketplace for a fixed price.

Re hidden reserves, I see how they make sense for some other auction platforms but we don't think it's an acceptable bidder experience with our collateral-based auction system. The most common and permissionless way to bid on Scarce City is by depositing a small amount of BTC with your bid (refunded as long as winning bid is paid). Many bidders deposit collateral over Lightning but some pay high fees to deposit onchain. It's a terrible experience to spend sats to bid, not to mention get emotionally involved in the auction, place the highest bid and still not win the auction because there's a hidden reserve. We're open to ideas on how to make it work but so far have not found a good enough solution.

Finally, on the design criticism, we're constantly making improvements and have a long list of improvements to make on our roadmap. Any specific feedback to help us prioritize improvements is always greatly appreciated.

I hope that helps clarify how we're approaching things. Understand that we're a small scrappy team doing our best to build a platform that offers the best experience for buyers and sellers while staying true to Bitcoin values and promoting Bitcoin culture. There are many challenges that don't have solutions, only tradeoffs.

Many thanks to all of you who are patient with us and have supported us along the way.

Chris

I am very glad you are taking steps in trying to prevent this type of situation from happening again.

I have been a buyer in the past from your site and had nothing but a good experience as I have described here>

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5455672.0

The idea that a seller would renege only highest bid and not deliver would have really have left a bad taste.

So forward and onward to better buyer protection in getting what they justly deserve on their high bid.

Cheers!