I assume that the platform will allow for one or both parties to require a mediator in case some dispute occurs. This is a whole area that Open Bazaar is sorting that would be very apt for the Safe Exchange.
Such would require an additional, probably modest, fee for each transaction which would go to the Mediator regardless of whether their service was needed or not. Could be selected from a community of those who specialized in doing it, who could be ranked by reputation.
There are a bunch of contingencies to be looked at here and there can be a market amongst different mediators, or types of escrow/settlement third parties, for those who require them.
The question is what sort of capabilities will be programmed into the exchange software that would allow a variety of options.
Not demanding a comprehensive answer. Just something to think about. This sort of thing could make or break the whole ecosystem.
The design will allow for people to create a mediator case; and establish a mediator network; So not all solutions fit all cases, and the platform needs to be accommodating to all contract types.
Edit: Hence âOpt-in Mediator as a serviceâ sounds like an interesting plateau to open up for the marketplace. Thanks @fergish for documenting that suggestion.
Iâm just thinking this could all evolve naturally as a "Board "Function via the coin mechanism. Iâd prefer to de-centralise conflict resolution using reputation a bit more and participants chosen at random as much as possible - rather than a panel of âexpertsâ. It could maybe work like jury service. This would essentially create a âPaypalâ of the Board to the Exchangeâs EbayâŚsort of
Interesting viewpoint, Iâd probably prefer that it didnât and was part of the terms and conditions of using the Exchange - to agree to be subject to the Democratic,equitable system of random judgement of peers in all matters pertaining to the Exchange . What is good is that we can decide all this democratically with the coins beforehandâŚ
However also preserving peopleâs rights by allowing anyone to post negating the infringement by the board. This will balance the world, though this forfeits the positive ramifications of being filtered by trading peers. Itâs up to the participant to decide which they will choose and how they want to publish their terms.
âTerms and Conditionsâ? There will be no terms and conditions for using the exchange, any more than there are terms and conditions for using bitcoin, or than there will be for using the SAFE Network as a whole. People will be âsubjectâ to the democratically determined matters pertaining to the Exchange because that will be the method of determining specific behaviors of the software. Thatâs all.
What is it that youâd âprobably prefer that it didnâtâ?
Thatâs a good point, whatever is implemented protocol level if people want to use past dated software thatâll be fine. As long as people are interacting with compatible clients all should be good. Even more so if Safe Network would allow us to just emulate clients directly, then based on the contract type the specific client could be fetched, handle the contract, and you can go about your business without every downgrading or needing to upgrade your clientâŚ
I see this advantage as we can keep an up-to-date basic client interface that pops up the correct interface for a particular contract. Something to invent for sure.
HmmmâŚmaybe the coin, or basic platform, but essentially not the Exchange as such.
Are you saying the coins only enable one to vote on the specific behaviours of the software and nothing else - nothing to do with what direction the project takes etc? There will be no expansion of the use cases for the voting mechanism - this is the biggest thingâŚbigger than the Exchange in my view.
This is set up like a company with a Board, the coins being representative of shares - are you seriously suggesting the Board canât introduce terms and conditions if it wanted to? There is a potential fully operational de-centralised Democracy possible here - people can sign up to it or notâŚthey have that choice. This is the same as any other Country, only it will be global.
LolâŚjust dawned on me that weâre going to get into all the same arguments about alleged coercion within DemocraciesâŚ
If nothing else, then think of it as analogous to having Maidsafe âkite-markedâ apps - you can be treated as a peer/equal with equal rights under the âCommunity resolution system/Democracyâ, or go private basically - this would enable multiple conflicting âlegalâ systems developing - Iâm a âOne Law For Allâ kinda guy, so will be advocating moving towards my desired future for the Exchange etc via the coins. To what extent will this be possible?
I said no such thing. Quite the contrary. Iâm only pointing out that the native capabilities will exist in the core software. Thereâs no âterms and conditionsâ to use it or interface the network.
Iâm not knee-jerk on the âdemocracyâ, either. I agree that this is a cool potential model for voluntary participation in a group-directed (read democratic) market. The key is that there can be and almost certainly will be competing markets to choose from. If one doesnât like the general direction of one crowd, start or follow another.
But I think that the core functionality will be programmed in so that most wonât have to fork the network to set up a circumstance they are satisfied with on the Safe Exchange itself. At least Iâm pretty sure that that is Danielâs target for use cases and overall direction.
Certainly, I see that the coin is a mechanism for the underlying protocol, and to keep an accountable environment for both folks who will be using this software, and the software development process is a part of that it is software after all. We must keep it simple, until we have decentralized github etc, we can first start with beta and experiment with the software, and see what is possible. And choose from the directions that maintain unencumbered development. So people can include addons on demand, whether everyone agrees or not, except a vote by the whole group would âcertifyâ the code as included.
This is something to explore. And it must be modular, a few governance systems exist. @grizmoblust comes to mind with something such as bitlaw. @kirkion as well, legal structures in decentralized networks
Well what immediately jumps to mind is a curated reputation association. The default functions of the SEC, seem to me to be focused on the functionality of the SAFEX, which is going to be code and tokens, and other digitally verifiable things.
The strength of a voluntary curated reputation association is that they could do fact-finding on things that are not necessarily digitally verifiable, such as physical addresses, which require you to trust the person doing the data entry. One way to do this would be to have a 3rd party verifier who gets the information, and cryptographically locks it on the SafeNetwork to a smart contract which will only open up the data if there is a dispute on a transaction.
Another interesting ingredient would be to have cryptographic lockboxes, perhaps even with internal cameras and a 3rd party who verifies that the camera works and that the lockbox is secure. This would allow for shipping between places of the box for physical goods. Long-term as more and more manufacturing is distributed through 3-D printing, this will matter less.
But whatever tools the association uses, they could issue tokens to their members, and consumers would be able to verify that a particular seller belongs to a reputation association. This could even be paired with an insurance policy (either one out in the conventional legal system) or a literal bond of some cryptocurrency which will be paid out upon a digitally signed finding by the association members.
All of this is very similar to how certain trade associations currently work and shouldnât be too hard to implement in some kind of legal entity.
Yeah, thatâs at least the major aspect of what Iâm talking about. Iâll have to study it closer to see if it fills the bill. I think various permutations of such are possible.
Bitrated is a good example of a reputation system. I think the wrap around difference is that bitrated builds ontop of bitcoin not bringing around their own coin in general.
I think the extra flexibility we will have on Safe Network, with Safe Exchange and its Coin we have the ability to set various terms.
In the case of bitrated may be limited to bitrated terms⌠Iâm suggesting that anyone can design a bitrated for their own crypto or product.
