Quote from: Bridgoro on August 21, 2025, 09:03:31 AM

Thank you for the thoughtful questions and for taking the time to dive into the core system!

Regarding Burner Wallet Addresses:
We intentionally chose to use escrow Buffer Wallets instead. Burner wallets could technically be applied, but they don't provide the same level of traceability and control the system needs for automated rollbacks and dispute prevention. With buffer wallets, each deal creates a unique wallet address that allows the system to securely lock funds until both parties confirm their part of the transaction. This gives us more transparency and reduces risks compared to simple burner addresses.
In addition, if funds become stuck in a Buffer Wallet, the Collector Module is able to retrieve them, since it is the only component with access to Buffer Wallets.

Thanks for the clarification, now I know more about the main difference between a burner wallet and a buffer wallet, so this all revolves around retrieving funds if anything goes wrong because a burner wallet for this purpose will be very risky especially with higher funds.

Quote from: Bridgoro on August 21, 2025, 09:03:31 AM

As for the Collector Module:
This is our own implementation, not something we acquired from a third party. Its role is to automatically monitor deals and step in whenever a transaction gets “stuck” (for example, if one side has deposited but the status doesn’t update properly). The module is designed to detect such edge cases and trigger a rollback or finalize the release, depending on the blockchain confirmations.
More about how Buffer Wallets work and the Collector Module can be found on our GitBook page.

That is good to know about the collection module, because third party code usually brings more errors and there is always fear of getting hacked because there are many real examples, exchanges are using third-party modules in their core system and its compromise helps hackers to steal money.

Quote from: Bridgoro on August 21, 2025, 09:03:31 AM

You are right, the core idea is not overly complex, but that's intentional. Our goal was to keep it efficient and transparent for users, while still making sure that users don't lose funds because of technical issues or unexpected delays.

That's great, things are simple and human friendly while machine friendly at the same time.

Quote from: Bridgoro on August 21, 2025, 09:03:31 AM

During the Beta Test phase, we initially set the minimum exchange amount to $10 (USD equivalent), but today we raised it to $12 (USD equivalent).
This adjustment was necessary because free faucets provide only small amounts of test tokens.

On mainnet, however, the minimum amount will be higher: most likely a bit above $30 (USD equivalent). This is due to the issues of Dead Wallet Amounts and Dust Transactions. We would gladly lower the minimum if it were possible, but unfortunately, blockchain limitations force us to raise it instead to avoid stuck transactions.

Once we've double-checked the Dead Wallet and Dust Transaction handling, we will inform the community of the final minimum exchange amount for mainnet.

So there is a minimum exchange amount in beta too, I did not knew before thanks for the clarification and this is so true that getting funds from faucet is a problem but I might have some T.eth in my wallet so it won't be a problem.

The dead wallet and dust transaction is a real problem then because if some amount left in those buffer wallet that will be not good for both parties. You have thought it through. Good Luck.