Some minor edits to Design doc 012: Fee schedule and metrics

1 files changed, 8 insertions, 6 deletions

diff --git a/design-documents/012-fee-schedule-metrics.rst b/design-documents/012-fee-schedule-metrics.rst
index f7a6f4e1..01689de1 100644
--- a/design-documents/012-fee-schedule-metrics.rst
+++ b/design-documents/012-fee-schedule-metrics.rst
@@ -122,9 +122,9 @@ If an Exchange operator charges relatively high deposit fees, sellers must have
 Deposit fees will also affect refund transactions, for example when a rebate is given by the seller to the customer. Only in the case of a complete withdrawal from the contract by the seller does the refund transaction exempt the buyer from the deposit fee. In that case, the refund transaction incurs the 'Refresh' fee, borne entirely by the buyers. If the seller's refund is partial, only the seller's deposit fee is waived, which means from the buyer's perspective a partially refunded purchase with coins signed at an Exchange with high deposit fees becomes less attractive. In other words: Deposit fees exceeding the seller's maximum value will be borne by the buyers, making the rebate worse from the buyers' perspective.
 
 Generally, sellers want to ensure that:
-(1) the exchange selected by the buyers complies with the regulatory requirements of the supervisory authorities (e.g. BaFin) and with anti-money laundering laws (AML); 
-(2) if paying is in EUR, the exchange operates in the SEPA currency area; and 
-(3) the fees of the selected exchange are within the limits of what the seller sets using its maximum deposit fee values (and wire fee maximum values as described below). 
+1. the exchange selected by the buyers complies with the regulatory requirements of the supervisory authorities (e.g. BaFin) and with anti-money laundering laws (AML); 
+2. if paying is in EUR, the exchange operates in the SEPA currency area; and 
+3. the fees of the selected exchange are within the limits of what the seller sets using its maximum deposit fee values (and wire fee maximum values as described below). 
 
 * **Refresh** from the buyer's point of view:
 
@@ -168,7 +168,7 @@ The closing charge is triggered by users of the payment system if, after a succe
 
 * **Closing** from the Exchange operator's point of view:
 
-Costs for the closing of a reserve are incurred by the Exchange operator due to irregular user behavior. However, Exchange operators may charge a fee for covering these costs to the user who caused them. The closing fee is indispensable for Exchange operators in order to prevent abuse through cost driving by malicious parties. Charging the fee by retaining it always works smoothly because the Exchange's escrow account is already in possession of users' funds through their wire transfers.
+Costs for the closing of a reserve are incurred by the Exchange operator due to irregular user behavior (withdrawing to the wallet failed within the given time frame, the Exchange has to wire the funds back to the originating account). However, Exchange operators may charge a fee for covering these costs to the user who caused them. The closing fee is indispensable for Exchange operators in order to prevent abuse through cost driving by malicious parties. Charging the fee by retaining it always works smoothly because the Exchange's escrow account is already in possession of users' funds through their wire transfers.
 
 * **Closing** from the seller's point of view:
 
@@ -179,7 +179,9 @@ Fee levels in case of misuse
 
 Normally, the payment process involves the fee types **Withdrawal**, **Deposit** and **Wire fee** - given the case the amount to be paid is settled with a coin of the exactly matching denomination. For any other amount for which a coin of higher denomination is used, the refresh transaction will generate change, i.e. post one or more fresh coins to the wallet until the difference is reached.
 
-However, refresh transactions can be triggered anonymously an unlimited number of times by malicious parties, thus harming Exchange operators. Exchange operators must therefore be able to take action in the event of misuse with the help of different fees:
+However, refresh transactions can be triggered anonymously an unlimited number of times by malicious parties, thus harming Exchange operators, and the fee type **Refresh** has to be chosen as treatment.
+
+Exchange operators must in some cases be able to take action by using different fees:
 
 * 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.
 
@@ -193,7 +195,7 @@ However, refresh transactions can be triggered anonymously an unlimited number o
 
 * 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 ``closing transactions`` and the involved remittances (withdrawing to the wallet failed within the given time frame, Exchange has to wire the value to the originating account) burdens the Exchange operator with costs for wire transfers; to prevent this, the Exchange operator can introduce a fee by adjusting the **closing** variable.
+* 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**.
 
 Alternatives
 ============