summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorStefan Kügel <skuegel@web.de>2021-01-16 23:08:07 +0100
committerStefan Kügel <skuegel@web.de>2021-01-16 23:08:07 +0100
commit1acb9f622d144400bfab037bf9769d8cbeb10228 (patch)
tree562f79e65610782c598b48db740d6a386665aac0
parentf55c66954f8fae37774d49d7a0ff9474ebe4260b (diff)
downloaddocs-1acb9f622d144400bfab037bf9769d8cbeb10228.tar.gz
docs-1acb9f622d144400bfab037bf9769d8cbeb10228.tar.bz2
docs-1acb9f622d144400bfab037bf9769d8cbeb10228.zip
Eliminating mistakes (Design doc 012)
-rw-r--r--design-documents/012-fee-schedule-metrics.rst8
1 files changed, 4 insertions, 4 deletions
diff --git a/design-documents/012-fee-schedule-metrics.rst b/design-documents/012-fee-schedule-metrics.rst
index 01689de..3d34a4c 100644
--- a/design-documents/012-fee-schedule-metrics.rst
+++ b/design-documents/012-fee-schedule-metrics.rst
@@ -185,15 +185,15 @@ Exchange operators must in some cases be able to take action by using different
* Abuse due to ``withdrawal transactions`` is unlikely as the costs of wire transfers are borne by the bank account holders and not the Exchange operators or sellers.
-* Abuse due to ``deposit transactions`` is unlikely as the Exchange operator will usually charge deposit fees on every denomination to generate income respectively to cover costs.
+* Abuse due to ``deposit transactions`` is unlikely as the Exchange operator usually would like to charge deposit fees on every denomination to generate income respectively to cover costs.
-* Abuse due to ``refresh transactions`` is possible and requires a differentiated treatment: The normal case for refresh transactions is given anytime when wallets obtain fresh coins as change for a spent coin of higher denomination than the amount to be paid. In this case, an Exchange operator will not charge a fee on refreshes for payments with coins of unsuitable denomination. Only in the case of abuse - when an exchange suffers from arbitrarily triggered refresh transactions en masse - the Exchange operator must charge this fee or increase it. The fee charges all coin owners whose coins were signed by that exchange. Misuse cases are:
+* Abuse due to ``refresh transactions`` is possible and requires a differentiated treatment: The normal case for refresh transactions is given anytime when wallets obtain fresh coins as change for a spent coin of higher denomination than the amount to be paid. In this case, an Exchange operator will not charge a fee on refreshes for payments with coins of unsuitable denomination. Only in the case of abuse - when an exchange suffers from arbitrary refresh transactions en masse triggered by malicious parties - the Exchange operator must charge fee type **Refresh** or increase it. The fee charges all coin owners whose coins were signed by that exchange. Misuse cases are:
1. arbitrary transaction aborts;
2. arbitrary repeated refunds (which, however, must be triggered by malicious sellers - costs are borne on a case-by-case basis by sellers).
-* Abuse due to ``refund transactions`` is theoretically possible and can be treated by introducing or increasing the 'Refund' fee whenever a seller triggers the refund transaction.
+* Abuse due to ``refund transactions`` occurs when sellers trigger the refund transaction arbitrarily too often. This can be limited by introducing or increasing the fee type **Refund**. As a consequence, the Exchange operator charges sellers for every refund they grant for coins that were signed by the exchange.
-* Abuse due to ``wire transfers`` will only be a burden for an Exchange operator when sellers increase the frequency of aggregated wire transfers from the exchange to their banking accounts. This is the case for extremely often triggered wire transfers after customers' deposit transactions in order to receive sales revenues immediately. A good reason to do this may be the seller's need for liquidity. Some merchants might also gain profit from interest rates, if they receive revues long time before they have to pay for their merchandise already sold. As IBAN wire transfer can be costly, it is recommendable that Exchange operators charge the resulting costs to the sellers with the wire fee.
+* Abuse due to ``wire transfers`` will only affect an Exchange operator when sellers increase the frequency of aggregated wire transfers from his exchange to their banking accounts. This will the case for extremely often actuated wire transfers. A good reason for this may be a seller's urgent need for liquidity from sales revenues. Some merchants might also generate profits from interest rates, if they receive sales revenues some time before they have to pay for their merchandise already sold. Another case might be the necessity of immediate receipt of value from coins spent by a donor to a recipient. In any of these cases, IBAN wire transfers can be costly. As a matter of fact, it is therefore recommendable for every Exchange operator to charge these costs to sellers or recipients by applying the **Wire fee**.
* Abuse due to ``closing transactions`` and the accompanying wire transfer of remittances back to the originating accounts burdens the Exchange operator with costs for wire transfers; to prevent this, the Exchange operator can introduce or increase the fee type **Closing**.