Bisq: What new payment methods would you like added to Bisq?

Created on 6 Nov 2020  路  28Comments  路  Source: bisq-network/bisq

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

Most helpful comment

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).

All 28 comments

Also relevant: https://github.com/bisq-network/bisq/issues/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.

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.

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

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.

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.

@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).

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....

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.

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.

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 https://github.com/bisq-network/bisq/issues/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 https://github.com/bisq-network/bisq/issues/1101

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

I left some comments....

@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.

Is Google wallet or Apple Pay an option?

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 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 https://github.com/bisq-network/bisq/issues/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: https://github.com/bisq-network/bisq/issues/1789#issuecomment-591253226.

Thanks @MwithM I have commented on https://github.com/bisq-network/growth/issues/193

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.

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 | Desirable | Definite No鈥檚 |
| ------------------- | ------------------- | ------------------- |
| Very low risk of chargeback | No risk of chargeback | < very low risk of chargeback |
| Way to verify the sender in the received payment | Ability to enter Trade ID as 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 | 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) |
| 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 | 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 |

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).

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

Payment methods

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.

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.

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...

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.

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...

Thanks, I will look into this.

Was this page helpful?
0 / 5 - 0 ratings