What new payment methods would you like added to Bisq?

[pazza83]

Description

I have recently taken on the role of researching new payment methods that can be added to Bisq and am looking to get ideas from Bisq users about what payment method they would like added.

If you would like to buy or sell using a particular payment method that is not available on Bisq please let me know.

What payment methods can be added?

To secure the trade protocol for all users it is vital that Bisq only uses payment methods with no or a very low risk of chargeback. Payments methods that make chargebacks easy to initiate for users eg PayPal are not suitable for Bisq.

Low chargeback risks are deemed as payment methods which are difficult for buyers to reverse. For example they would need to report their account as compromised / hacked for a chargeback to even be considered. For low chargeback payment methods Bisq uses a 'account signing' to mitigate risks to traders.

The trade protocol also requires the BTC buyer to state the Bisq Trade ID in the payment reference / description for the seller. This means payment methods need a reference / description for the seller.

Payment methods that provide quick transactions are also preferable as they add to user experience, and also reduce the potential for either party pulling out of the trade. Currently Bisq has payment methods with transaction times between 1 hour and 6 days.

Bisq is strongly No KYC. Any payment methods that require traders to request additional information from their trade counterparty (address info, passport, Selfies!! etc would not be suitable on Bisq)

The above are just based on my opinion of using Bisq so please feel free to let me know if you disagree with any of the above.

What type of payment methods are preferred?

Ideally new payment methods added to Bisq would:

Increase liquidity in existing markets
Open up new markets
Attract new traders of that particular payment method to Bisq

It would also be good to know if anyone has ideas for any multi-currency payment methods that would allow users to trade with more than one currency such as Revolut, Uphold etc

Please feel free to suggest any ideas you think would be popular on Bisq

[ghost]

Relevant: #1101

[m52go]

Also relevant: #1789

The trade protocol also requires the BTC buyer to state the Bisq Trade ID in the payment reference / description for the seller.

This isn't a hard requirement...there are payment methods that don't accommodate this right now.

[chimp1984]

The trade protocol also requires the BTC buyer to state the Bisq Trade ID in the payment reference / description for the seller. This means payment methods need a reference / description for the seller.

This together with stating the sending account information to the seller is used to protect against "triangular scam" attempts, where a 3rd person is tricked to send money to the BTC seller (e.g. for buying an iPhone on Ebay). Once the seller release the BTC the scammer gets the BTC and the victim will discover at some point that he never got sent the item he purchased. When he file a police report the Seller get accused as he was the receiver of the funds. Bisq never had such a case as far I am aware, probably because we protected from early times on against that by the need to provide the sending bank details and the reference text.

[chimp1984]

Amazon gift cards (or other polular cards) have been requested often.

[pazza83]

This together with stating the sending account information to the seller is used to protect against "triangular scam" attempts

Thanks for letting me know. Does this rule out using a third party to send funds such as a money transfer services that would directly deposit in the users bank account from the account details of the money transfer service rather than the individual user? For example XE, OFX, WorldRemit etc

I understand both MoneyGram and Western Union are accepted money transfer services but these both seem to work from my understanding that the end user has to collect cash from a dedicated location and being able to confirm the sender's full name and other information relate to the transaction. Direct deposits are not possible with either of these payment methods as fair as I am aware. This adds security that the user is trading with their Bisq counterparty.

[chimp1984]

Does this rule out using a third party to send funds such as a money transfer services that would directly deposit in the users bank account from the account details of the money transfer service rather than the individual user? For example XE, OFX, WorldRemit etc

I just wanted to make the context more clear why certain requirements are in place. Those have been built around the main payment methods like SEPA and Zelle. For others that risk of triangular scam can be much lower just be the fact that those payment methods are not commonly uses, so for scammers it will be hard to find a victim (which are often elderly not tech-savvy persons). So would not see such things too pragmatic. Goal is to keep scammers out as far as possible, specially "serial-scammers" who try to repeat a certain scheme.

[pazza83]

@chimp1984 thanks for letting me know. As money transfer services are less at risk of triangular scam I will consider them for addition. Chargeback risk is low and payments can be given a reference do allow trade counterparty to be identified (this would be needed in this case as the seller would not be able to match payment account details of the buyer).

[chimp1984]

Ah yes thats another important role of the reference field. If you have 2 trades with exact same amount the seller does not know who paid....

[pazza83]

In considering payment methods I would like to know what Bisq stakeholders opinions are in terms of considering payment options with any of the following:

• Higher risks of traders being able to scam other users
• Verification of payment more difficult/unable to be achieved through mediation

I am sure everyone would agree that Bisq should reduce the risk of scammers as much as possible. But I am unsure as to how much Bisq should aim to limit the choice of payment methods to those which can be verified and are, therefore, less at risk of scammers.

Proposed cash by mail options and amazon vouchers etc would seem like useful additions, and both have traders that would like to utilize them. However both have additional problems with verification. I am not sure how much Bisq should balance individuals' wish to utilize particular payment methods vs ensuring trades are secure for as many users as possible?

Users that take precautions and build up relationships over time with their counter parties will mitigate the risk of problems. However new users may not have the experience or knowledge to take adequate precautions.

For a Payment Method to be added to Bisq is it essential that mediators can verify the payment took place?

FWIW my own thoughts are that, whatever payment methods are chosen, Bisq should maintain as a safe place for people to trade. I chose Bisq over other P2P options as I felt Bisq had a much stronger reputation for being a safe place to trade than it's competitors. I acknowledge that this option would lead to slower increases in trading volumes, but I think maintaining a safe place will ultimately prove the successful strategy in the long term.

[chimp1984]

Higher risks of traders being able to scam other users

I would be very careful with that. At the end it falls back on Bisq's reputation if users get scammed as well it attracts LE if scammers see in Bisq an easy platform to cash out.

Verification of payment more difficult/unable to be achieved through mediation
Usually thats a hard requirement, exception is F2F trades but that has a diff. context as its a real life situations with all its pros and cons reagarding security. Consider that Bisq does not have a centralized reputation system and account system like other centralized platform which offer such methods.

amazon vouchers.... have additional problems with verification

Can you explain what are the problems? I thought that its pretty safe and not that hard to verify, but never used them...

I think we have to take care to not bootstrap a payment method which might not see scammers initially because its low liquidity and once its successfully adopted scammers come and ruin all what we have built up. You cannot trust a random anonynmous stranger who has nothing to lose if the scam gets detected.

For a Payment Method to be added to Bisq is it essential that mediators can verify the payment took place?

Yes, as said exception is F2F but that has diff. context.

FWIW my own thoughts are that, whatever payment methods are chosen, Bisq should maintain as a safe place for people to trade. I chose Bisq over other P2P options as I felt Bisq had a much stronger reputation for being a safe place to trade than it's competitors. I acknowledge that this option would lead to slower increases in trading volumes, but I think maintaining a safe place will ultimately prove the successful strategy in the long term.

I agree. We worked hard on that reputation and we should not risk easily to lose it.

[pazza83]

Hi @chimp1984 thanks for all your comments much appreciated.

With regards higher risks I agree it is best to keep them as low as possible to maintain Bisq's reputation and to provide a safe platform to trade on.

With regards Amazon Gift Cards I have commented on the thread #1866 I am not sure the method (In-Amazon Payment) that is easy to verify has much of a use case, and the method that had more of a use case (Send gift card numbers) cannot be verified.

With regards cash F2F it would be useful to get your thoughts on Cash by Mail #1101

This is an example of a payment method that has a strong use case but comes with more risks.

[chimp1984]

I left some comments....

[chimp1984]

@pazza83 Have you looked into International Wire (SWIFT)? I think it has no chargeback risk but high costs (about 80 USD), but if no/low chargeback risk we could allow higher trade limits so the costs are in a better ration to the transferred amount.

[chimp1984]

Is Google wallet or Apple Pay an option?

[MwithM]

I guess most gift cards need offers with fixed fiat prices. You have to send a gift card for 50USD, not 45.53USD or 51.53USD depending on price fluctuation.

I'd like to see Colombian payment methods that have been on the waiting queue for a little bit ot time, like Nequi.

[pazza83]

@pazza83 Have you looked into International Wire (SWIFT)? I think it has no chargeback risk but high costs (about 80 USD), but if no/low chargeback risk we could allow higher trade limits so the costs are in a better ration to the transferred amount.

Hi @chimp1984, Yes see #1789
There is a small risk of chargeback due to the 'Stop and recall' system introduced fairly recently. However I think it is small enough for it to be added with account signing in place.

The proposal is pretty complete it would be good to add but the fields needed are a little more complex than existing payment methods see: #1789 (comment).

[pazza83]

Thanks @MwithM I have commented on bisq-network/growth#193

[pazza83]

Is Apple Pay an option?

From: https://applecash.greendot.com/termsconditions/

If you charge back or reverse a P2P Transfer funded with a Supported Payment Card (either in whole or in part) with the issuer of such Supported Payment Card, we may reduce the balance on your Apple Cash Card by the amount charged back or reversed, even if such action would result in a negative balance.

As Apple Pay fund payments from a linked credit or debit card, a scammer could attempt to file a chargeback a credit card transaction.

Apple Pay transactions themselves are non-fundable

Except as otherwise expressly provided herein or as otherwise required by applicable law, transactions authorized in connection with the Funds Transfer Service are non-refundable. We are not responsible for any loss of funds if you authorize and instruct us to send funds to the wrong User, account, or other designated recipient.

However, where Apple Pay suspect fraud they say the user must cooperate in their Recovery Efforts

You agree to cooperate reasonably with us and our agents and service providers in our attempts to recover funds from, and to assist in the prosecution of, any unauthorized use of the Direct Payments Service.

[pazza83]

I have just put together a list of requirements to consider when adding new payment methods.

Currently their is not documentation around what does / does not make a good payment method so this is my attempt to share my current thoughts as to what should be considered when adding new payment methods.

The idea would be when evaluating a payment method against the requirements if it can meet at least all essential requirements it can be added to Bisq.

If a payment method had any definite no's it would be unable to be added to Bisq.

It is a work in progress at the moment and it would be great to have peoples comments.

If you think I have missed anything, or included something incorrectly please let me know.

Essential (+1)	Desirable (+2)	Definite No’s (-2)
Very low risk of chargeback	No risk of chargeback	< very low risk of chargeback
Way to verify the sender in the received payment	Way to verify the sender in the received payment and ability to enter a reference	No way to verify the sender in the received payment
Trade time less than one week	Instant payment	Trade time more than one week
Singular Fiat currency	Multi-currency	Not a payment method for fiat currency
Significant user base	Large user base	No significant user base
High usability	High usability and great user experience	< high amount usability
No KYC required for sending and receiving payments	No KYC required for sending and receiving payments, allows users to trade with upmost privacy. Minimal identifying information as possible (no names, email, phone etc required)	Some KYC required (proof of address, ID, selfie) for sending and receiving payments
Low risk of scam attempts	Trades are as safe and secure for as many users as possible	< low risk of scam attempts
Traders can provide evidence of payment / receipt	Traders can provide evidence of payment / receipt and Verification of payment can be made using PageSigner or similar	Traders will be unable to provide evidence of payment / receipt
Minimum limit at least equal to at least account limits protocols	No minimum limits	Minimum limit not able to achieve account limits protocols
Maximum limits equal to at least 0.01 BTC	Large payment limits up to 2 BTC	Maximum limit is less than 0.01 BTC
Likely to increase liquidity	Likely to open markets for different countries and currencies	Likely to decrease liquidity
Low risk of mediation	Very low risk of mediation	< low risk of mediation
Low risk for traders from government agencies	No risk for traders from government agencies	< low risk for traders from government agencies
Fees should not be a barrier to trading	No fees for transactions	Fees will be a barrier to trading
Only minor changes needed to trade protocol	No changes needed to trade protocol	> Minor changes needed to trade protocol

[chimp1984]

An important feature is that the seller is able to verify the sender in the received payment. This should be the main payment method data (name, IBAN, email,...) additionall to the trade ID. This is needed to avoid the tri-angular scam attempt as well for account signing.

Regarding max limits:
This is not only for security of the traders but also for risk limitation of mediators/arbitrators in case they make a mistake. It happened repeatedly and they have to pay from their own pocket for such mistakes, which can be very expensive with a 2 BTC trade. So even in 100% secure methods like most altcoins this limit cannot be raised (it might be already too high with current BTC price).

[pazza83]

After looking at what other P2P providers are offering, payment methods Bisq is not offering that are popular with other exchanges are the following.

• Payeer
• Skrill
• SWIFT
• TransferWise
• WebMoney
• Neteller
• Payoneer
• RIA Money Transfer
• Venmo
• WorldRemit
• Cash By Mail
• CashU
• IMPS
• OkPay
• Paxum
• Paytm Online Wallet
• Pingit
• Qiwi
• Yandex.Money

I know CBM and SWIFT are being considered and TransferWise is due to be implemented. It would be great to know which of the others have been considered, discounted, retired etc.

Here is a link to the data showing what if on offer by Bisq and other P2P exchanges: https://onlyo.co/32N8zFv

[chimp1984]

Venmo is a no-go as we made already bad experience with it.

OkPay we had initially but I dont remember what was the reason why we removed it but was something serious (no scam, but company changed to something scammy/weird)

Halcash we have but no trades. I guess that would need more PR. Its a quite cool payment method but only ferw countries.

I forgot the name but there is in Poland some interesting candidate as well.

[m52go]

I looked into Ria and I believe it is quite similar to Western Union with maybe some lower fees based on where you're sending money. Never pursued it since WU is rarely used.

These payment methods may have more potential if offers made with such multinational payment methods could be displayed (i.e., offer-maker has option) in offer books of multiple currency markets...ditto for SWIFT, TransferWise, etc.

[chimp1984]

A problem with Western Union how we have implemented is that you can use it only between same countries which is not the real use case for it. So I think that should be fixed...

[pazza83]

I looked into Ria and I believe it is quite similar to Western Union with maybe some lower fees based on where you're sending money. Never pursued it since WU is rarely used.

I think one of the differences between the two, at least in my country, is that with Ria you can have money directly deposited in your bank. With Western Union you have to go to a collection point with ID and collect cash.

The picking up cash part stopped me from using WU, I did investigate if direct deposits were an option but they did not appear to be with a personal account.

[pazza83]

TODO would be really nice to have a second opinion that Faster payments are absolutely on par with national bank transfers in terms of chargebacks; I feel it's so

Hi @skaunov thanks for the feedback

Other Russian payment methods proposed include:

• Alfa-Bank
• VTB
• Sherbank
• Tinkoff
• YooMoney
• Qiwi

Any ideas what would be most popular to be used?

Currently there are very few trades on Bisq for RUB.

[skaunov]

Wow, in email my reply looked much better. Let me just redo it.

Thanks for swift reply!

Currently there are very few trades on Bisq for RUB.

I guess it's chicken and egg as always. Also I may be very wrong, but Russia really needs a system with high level of scam protection and also permissionless.

Any ideas what would be most popular to be used?

The one I mentioned initially is hold by CB and any individual customer expects it from his bank. It's an extension/iteration of national banking transfers in many sense, so it's the one most ubiquitous.
Let me go through the list. Most of them are just particular bank systems for transfers between own customers (so it's same bank method which already present).

After populating the list I got the idea that adding optional field "transfer by phone number" should cover most same bank transfers. Though I guess it should be analysed what data does it require instead (name, account number would not be needed in this case usually), and what info on sender does it reveal to the receiver.

Other Russian payment methods proposed include:

* Alfa-Bank

* VTB

* Sberbank

* Tinkoff

All of the above are same bank of a respective popular bank.

* YooMoney

Payment system built and sold by Yandex. Provide some facilities to receive money via phone number, and maybe wallet number and some number of integrations. Am not really into it.

* Qiwi

International payment system. IIRC has some problems now. Was built around phone numbers, though should have number of integrations.

[pazza83]

Thanks for the feedback.

Do you think the Russian Faster Payment method it the one that most Russian's will have access to and will have the most take-up of the above payment methods?

[skaunov]

My feelings/reasoning says yes. Though it's my own biased opinion without relying on any statistics. Note that it's known under its Russian name in Cyrillic (see that link; transliterated "SBP"). Is it possible to use Russian in Bisq? Never thought about translations tbh.

As a deeper answer I'd say that there three most popular instant transfer methods: Faster payments, Card-to-card, Sberbank same bank. Same bank is same bank as usual; card-to-card could be more private as takes only the card number, but incurs higher fees than Faster.

[skaunov]

Also it would be beneficial to add the names of this top banks in UI along with their BIC. I mean when the BIC been input it could show the logo near it and/or name. It will provide much better experience and is small in development and negligible maintenance for three banks, while cover majority of struggling on this direction.

[sroo8]

Could we have 99.9% gold and silver bullion as payment methods? It would be very similar to the current "Cash By Mail" payment method in that the bullion would need to be physically posted, and there may be some geographical restrictions.

There are standard currency codes XAU and XAG (gold and silver) for pricing bullion per troy ounce.

[pazza83]

Could we have 99.9% gold and silver bullion as payment methods?

This would be very hard to mediate if there was an issue with weight / purity etc. I cannot see it working with the current multsig trade protocol.

[sroo8]

Could we have 99.9% gold and silver bullion as payment methods?

This would be very hard to mediate if there was an issue with weight / purity etc. I cannot see it working with the current multsig trade protocol.

I'm not convinced that this reasoning holds true. That is, I cannot see how bullion as payment payment would be inherently more riskier than existing payment methods on Bisq e.g. cash by mail.

All bullion grade precious metals are clearly stamped with both weight and purity. In many countries this is a legal requirement.

There are typically only two weight units. Troy ounce and metric grams. For simplicity only troy ounce could be used as it's more popular, and the conversion is simple.

With regard to purity. Bullion grade bars and coins are almost always 99.9+% purity for both gold and silver.

I work with a large group (2000+ members) of precious metal traders who have expressed interest in having a trusted third party to mediate trades. Bisq could be an ideal platform if it catered for precious metals (gold and silver).

[pazza83]

I admit that my knowledge of gold and silver is very limited.

I work with a large group (2000+ members) of precious metal traders who have expressed interest in having a trusted third party to mediate trades. Bisq could be an ideal platform if it catered for precious metals (gold and silver).

Can you tell me a little more about what problem you are trying to solve for these traders. I do not like the idea of Bisq being a trusted third party for such trades. Cash by mail trades do work for Bisq but they are often more difficult to mediate than say bitcoin <-> altcoin or fiat trades, due to their physical nature.

What are the current services people are using gold / silver peer to peer trades, if such a service exists.

[sroo8]

Can you tell me a little more about what problem you are trying to solve for these traders. I do not like the idea of Bisq being a trusted third party for such trades. Cash by mail trades do work for Bisq but they are often more difficult to mediate than say bitcoin <-> altcoin or fiat trades, due to their physical nature.

What are the current services people are using gold / silver peer to peer trades, if such a service exists.

The way we've traditionally traded has been through internet forums. People gain a reputation through trading feedback with other members, and by posting content on forums. Over time they become more trusted. Trust is earned by trading feedback score + posts + length of forum membership. Apart from feedback score, there is no system to gauge trust, it is entirely a heuristic.

A new (untrusted) member who has never traded before will usually be limited to low value transactions, and will be asked for payment to clear before shipping. It's obviously risky if a new member trades with another new member.

Most of the time bullion is posted domestically. If the bullion buyer has a low reputation then the seller will require payment to clear before shipment. Otherwise they may ship before payment. There's always a risk that the seller takes the funds and abandons their account. It has happened a few times over the 10+ years that I've been trading. Other members never know what happened, they may have died for all we know.

In terms of shipping insurance. Sellers will usually provide this at a cost price.

Often traders are looking for crypto to bullion trades or vice versa. Which is why I saw Bisq as a good fit.

The only real alternative to trading on forums is to sell back to bullion dealers. They typically buy back at many percent below the bullion's spot price. i.e. their buyback prices are not very attractive.

If you were to implement bullion trades I would be a vocal proponent of my members trading on Bisq for all their crypto/bullion trades.

[skaunov]

The idea of "bullions by mail" is entertaining, it was cute to read the proposal. @sroo8 ! I also understand @pazza83 concerns. I would direct you to Particl with their Marketplace and BasicSwap as they are more suitable for your case (am not sure, but their MAD approach looks even more suitable to you) and could be more happy to have you in the community (in terms of making your life easier with specific features).

Personally I know to less about cash by mail method, but can imagine committing to bank notes (via numbers) and sending from a hiding address/endpoint/post-office. And this could be really helpful in mediating when cash is fake. (You need to be quite fast to produce the notes with the same numbers, and it seems infeasible currently with the grade of cash by mail popularity.) But what to do with the fake metals? Is it possible to commit to it (radio emissions sounds complicated if they're a way)? Anyway it's an cute topic for some "mind gymnastics".

Feel free to reach out, also I shared the link with that project in case they're interested.

[sroo8]

I would direct you to Particl with their Marketplace and BasicSwap as they are more suitable for your case (am not sure, but their MAD approach looks even more suitable to you) and could be more happy to have you in the community (in terms of making your life easier with specific features).

Thanks. I'll investigate Particl.

Personally I know to less about cash by mail method, but can imagine committing to bank notes (via numbers) and sending from a hiding address/endpoint/post-office. And this could be really helpful in mediating when cash is fake. (You need to be quite fast to produce the notes with the same numbers, and it seems infeasible currently with the grade of cash by mail popularity.) But what to do with the fake metals? Is it possible to commit to it (radio emissions sounds complicated if they're a way)? Anyway it's an cute topic for some "mind gymnastics".

I would imagine the cash-by-mail method poses an almost identical risk to what bullion by mail would. Given that serial numbers on notes could be faked / copied.

Most bullion traders can immediately spot fakes. Even first time traders can spot fakes in government minted coins (i.e. 1oz Silver Eagles, 1oz Canadian Maples, Perth Mint coins ... etc). Chinese fakes exist but they are such poor copies that almost anyone can spot them. Because most of these gov minted coins are also legal tender, faking them comes with serious criminal / counterfeiting charges.

Many traders have access to XRF testing machines (X-ray Fluorescence) that quickly identify purity. In my 10+ years of bullion experience I have only heard of a couple of cases where traders have attempted to pass-off fakes, and they were quickly spotted.

[pazza83]

(am not sure, but their MAD approach looks even more suitable to you)

Yes, I agreed a MAD protocol would be a good option as it removes the need for a mediator / trusted party to complete the trade.

[skaunov]

That's cool! My second thought was actually if you consider bullions more like a good or more like a payment media. I feel like Bisq is much more suited for payment media.

I would imagine the cash-by-mail method poses an almost identical risk to what bullion by mail would. Given that serial numbers on notes could be faked / copied.

Yes and no. Committing to the number will let arbitrage to understand which side provided the fake since manufacturing fakes in the narrow window between receiving the parcel and raising the ticket doesn't look as a profitable strategy/tactic. Though I bet no such commitment is implemented since the method isn't that popular anyway.

With bullion I have no idea how to understand did the seller received fake metal or faking the claim. Also I just understood for cash commitment it's required a trusted verifier between sender and receiver... So you're right --- pretty the same.

Sounds more like a good to me. I afraid that idea of spending gold will scale much faster than the competence of the traders community you describe. And it brings that obvious risks for scamming in the gap. That's why I can understand skepsis for Bisq becoming trusted party in this.

Most bullion traders can immediately spot fakes. ...

Many traders have access to XRF testing machines (X-ray Fluorescence) ...

[sroo8]

Sounds more like a good to me. I afraid that idea of spending gold will scale much faster than the competence of the traders community you describe. And it brings that obvious risks for scamming in the gap. That's why I can understand skepsis for Bisq becoming trusted party in this.

I can only say that calling bullion a 'good' stems from a lack of understanding / experience. Government minted coins are typically classified as legal tender and have the legal protections as such.

Although gold and silver are not in common circulation today, they have been regarded as money for thousands of years prior to Fiat based monetary systems. Unlike goods, bullion shares much of the 'money' characteristics that make Bitcoin (and other cryptos) attractive. Portable, fungible, dense, censor resistant ... etc.

I still say there is no more risk in trading bullion <--> crypto than there is with cash or even digital payment methods. Any perceived risks are probably founded in fearing the unknown. Additionally the minimal risks could be further mitigated by limiting the types of bullion to government issued bullion that has legal tender status.

[skaunov]

I'm mostly agree with you, and I guess it would make the world better if the situation with insane enforced centralized "money" was different.

My concern with metals as payment method is lack of infrastructure for it. I really afraid that advance in processing and chemistry made it much harder to believe that what I receive real gold (or any other appropriate metal) and not a cheaper forgery. I understand that it's not easy to fool you, but I'm not so sure in myself. And without such infrastructure you can guess where it's heading. It's an entertaining question how such an infrastructure can be build (and whether Bisq should pioneer it), but it's obvious states/government want precisely opposite. (It's another entertaining question why those nice features you mentioned are preserved. I wonder how well nominal and real values of those coins your mentioned.)

Ofc bullion are more fiat money then what we already used to call by that name, at least linguistically. And if they weren't somewhere in-between goods and payment media we weren't discussing it. You're right, but I like to think about it in more infrastructural way. If you don't lend it, transfer, buying something with it, paying with it, but buy and trade it on some forums, than it seems like it will be kind of problematic to integrate it in a system which designed for payments processing (at least yet). From this perspective cash by mail is a good too, btw. How does it differ? But "postal orders" are much more payment like (though you need a post office for both).

[sroo8]

My concern with metals as payment method is lack of infrastructure for it. I really afraid that advance in processing and chemistry made it much harder to believe that what I receive real gold (or any other appropriate metal) and not a cheaper forgery. I understand that it's not easy to fool you, but I'm not so sure in myself.

There is no known chemistry that can fake gold or silver (AKA alchemy).

In reality fake bullion is easier to spot than counterfeit cash. Also the infrastructure for testing is very cheap and can be easily 3D printed for around 45¢ in materials. Or one can be purchased on Amazon for $14.

Alternatively there are even APPs that can test bullion coins using the sound.

Again, I think the fear that bullion would be a vector for 'risks for scamming in the gap' are probably unfounded and arise from fear of unknown.

https://apps.apple.com/us/app/precious-coin-tester/id1474466880

3D printed a ping tester

[skaunov]

You're wrong: alchemists stated goal wasn't to fake gold (and some other materials) but to get genuine one from (transmuting) other (preferably cheap) materials. On the other hand history of faking is basically as long as the history of bullion itself.

My concern with metals as payment method is lack of infrastructure for it. I really afraid that advance in processing and chemistry made it much harder to believe that what I receive real gold (or any other appropriate metal) and not a cheaper forgery. I understand that it's not easy to fool you, but I'm not so sure in myself.

There is no known chemistry that can fake gold or silver (AKA alchemy).

Yeah, of course. I really would be glad if your thing will succeed!

Again, I think the fear that bullion would be a vector for 'risks for scamming in the gap' are probably unfounded and arise from fear of unknown.

Ah, that's why we call proofs sound! X)

https://apps.apple.com/us/app/precious-coin-tester/id1474466880

3D printed a ping tester

[skaunov]

Yep, not trying to fake it...

The definition for alchemist: a person who attempts to to change ordinary metals into gold.

Lots of them ofc. Though I believe many of them were scientists of the era and it was their "front" for natural studies. AFAIU chemistry had a lot from alchemy on its start.

In reality alchemists would have settled for a product that was in all practical aspects indistinguishable from gold, regardless of whether it was 'genuine'.

I should note that I find your choice of a place for alchemy discussion quite weird. I believe it's the moment for @pazza83 to interfere and keep the discussion on topic of Bisq and payment methods.

[pazza83]

@sroo8

Chatted though the feasibility of adding gold and silver with one of the devs.

I think at this stage it is not feasible for a few reasons:

• Difficultly mediating / arbitrating these trades
• Difficulty pulling in a gold/btc or silver/btc price
• Offers would have to be for a fixed amount rather than a dynamic amount based on changing market prices

Would be good to see it added in the future but I do not think the current trade protocol is suitable.

If you would like to discuss further maybe make create a new proposal issue here https://github.com/bisq-network/proposals/issues

A guide to creating proposals can be seen here: https://bisq.wiki/Proposals

Many thanks

[sroo8]

I think at this stage it is not feasible for a few reasons:

* Difficultly mediating / arbitrating these trades

Already discussed. Should present no more difficulty / risk than cash-by-mail.

* Difficulty pulling in a gold/btc or silver/btc price

On this point. Gold and silver have their own ISO 4217 currency codes. XAU=gold, XAG=silver. I know most currency feed providers have these codes (e.g. openexchangerates.org).

* Offers would have to be for a fixed amount rather than a dynamic amount based on changing market prices

I would counter this point by saying it's closely related to the previous 'pulling in a gold/btc' prices. If XAU and XAG price data were available, it should be no different to any other dynamic price.

[skaunov]

I have just put together a list of requirements to consider when adding new payment methods.

Currently their is not documentation around what does / does not make a good payment method so this is my attempt to share my current thoughts as to what should be considered when adding new payment methods.

@pazza83 , I couldn't find how to copy the table to make the move similar to bisq-network/growth#220 (comment). Could you teach me to copy it, or move its code to a gist and link it in that comment, idk.

[pazza83]

I have just put together a list of requirements to consider when adding new payment methods.
Currently their is not documentation around what does / does not make a good payment method so this is my attempt to share my current thoughts as to what should be considered when adding new payment methods.

@pazza83 , I couldn't find how to copy the table to make the move similar to bisq-network/growth#220 (comment). Could you teach me to copy it, or move its code to a gist and link it in that comment, idk.

| Essential   | Desirable | Definite No’s |
| ------------------- | ------------------- | ------------------- |
| **Very low risk of chargeback**  | ~~No risk of chargeback~~  | ~~< very low risk of chargeback~~  |
| ~~Way to verify the sender in the received payment~~ | **Way to verify the sender in the received payment and ability to enter a reference**  | ~~No way to verify the sender in the received payment~~  |
| ~~Trade time less than one week~~ | **Instant payment**  | ~~Trade time more than one week~~  |
| **Singular Fiat currency**  | ~~Multi-currency~~  | ~~Not a payment method for fiat currency~~  |
| **Significant user base** | ~~Large user base~~  | **No significant user base**  |
| ~~High usability~~  | **High usability and great user experience**  | **< high amount usability~~  |
| **No KYC required for sending and receiving payments** | ~~No KYC required for sending and receiving payments, allows users to trade with upmost privacy. Minimal identifying information as possible (no names, email, phone etc required)~~ | ~~Some KYC required (proof of address, ID, selfie) for sending and receiving payments~~  |
| **Low risk of scam attempts**  | ~~Very low risk of scam attempts~~  | ~~< low risk of scam attempts~~ |
| **Traders can provide evidence of payment / receipt**  | ~~Traders can provide evidence of payment / receipt and Verification of payment can be made using PageSigner or similar~~ | ~~Traders will be unable to provide evidence of payment / receipt~~  |
| ~~Minimum limit at least equal to at least account limits protocols~~  | **No minimum limits**  | ~~Minimum limit not able to achieve account limits protocols~~  |
| **Maximum limits equal to at least 0.01 BTC**  | ~~Large payment limits up to 2 BTC~~  | ~~Maximum limit is less than 0.01 BTC~~  |
| **Likely to increase liquidity**  | ~~Likely to increase liquidity and open markets for different countries and currencies~~  | ~~Likely to decrease liquidity~~  |
| **Low risk of mediation**  | ~~Very low risk of mediation~~  | ~~< low risk of mediation~~  |
| **Low risk for traders from government agencies**  | ~~No risk for traders from government agencies~~ | ~~< low risk for traders from government agencies~~  |
| ~~Fees should not be a barrier to trading~~  | **No fees for transactions**  | ~~Fees will be a barrier to trading~~  |
| ~~Only minor changes needed to trade protocol~~  | **No changes needed to trade protocol**  | ~~> Minor changes needed to trade protocol~~  |

[skaunov]

Way to verify the sender in the received payment and ability to enter a reference

I wonder if this line should be edited/removed. Since my impression from the wiki is that currently narrative (or reference) is discourage, and we actually desire methods which let not to include narrative, and then those which require to include a generic one, and requiring more is a disadvantage. @pazza83

[pazza83]

@skaunov Yes, well spotted. It should be removed as now the rules are to not send information with the payment so a reference is not needed.

[github-actions]

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

[github-actions]

This issue has been automatically closed because of inactivity. Feel free to reopen it if you think it is still relevant.