I won't argue with your points 1-3, makes sense but this was fun building, and long term i think it was for the best. However, i would argue that the value of this currency is not tied to scarcity like bitcoin, or usage like ethereum. Instead the value of Dealta would be based on how well the initial goal is achieved, which is to reduce online frauds. The protocol is setup with timers, that limit how much time can be spent on each stage of a trade, hence limits time wasted when items are not in transit. Given that ebay and amazon take huge percentages, it could in fact be cheaper for the buyer. Its supply and demand. Thirdly, to counter the issue of a buyer holding on to an item, you can simply increase the collateral, lets say with 100%, so a 50% decrease in the coin's price is accounted for, thus making it infeasible. Again, this is something to be decided by the community. My initial argument for making Dealta PoW-based is that much like with any other crypto, whales who think this a good idea, would be able to handle the early volatility. All these things are why Dealta also has a native crypto. Would love to hear more from you!
Reputation gained by trading with those with high reputation … hard to game that. It’s backed by threads in FS/FT threads on forums where folks can share proof of delivery and talk about the trade etc etc. this blockchain nonsense is not needed.
How about trading with those with low reputation? I assume a high reputation takes time to build, and people who are willing to take the risk with low reputation traders. That is the main issue with reputation based systems. Is Heatware transparent? Yes, but what happens if a dispute arises? I assume there are mods, whose main goal is to protect their position and Heatware. Blockchain gives the necessary voting power to the people, such that frauds are economically infeasible. Would love to discuss this more!
You are absolutely right! Jokes aside, i got other things to take care of. Regardless of what you believe, the code is not AI generated, vibe coded etc. Is it a quick and dirty? Yes, but from what i remember, it is purely for testing. Bad practice, for sure, no doubt, lots of workarounds. It is OOP after all. Also as i wrote, the code needs polishing, it is an alpha after all. Thanks for the audit!
Once a trade has been initiated, sellers won't be able to back out. The seller has no control over the pseudo-random broker selection for their trade, hence can't choose a preferred broker either.
I chose to build an L1 for several reasons. One major factor is the desire for fair currency distribution. Additionally, I wanted to ensure instant finality to prevent block reverts during trades.
They chose to use an L1 for several reasons. The major factor is creating their own blockchain allows them to redistribute wealth to their own wallets. Additionally, they wanted to ensure instant finality so that no one can revert the fraud.
The paper was aimed at a broader audience, which is why it simplifies some concepts and makes certain assumptions. While there are potential drawbacks to consider, it’s reasonable to assume that a seller of a fraudulent item gains nothing if the item gets rejected. In that scenario, their goal of making money wouldn’t be achieved, and any additional losses wouldn’t significantly impact the protocol. In fact it would deter fraudsters. I'd love to hear more thoughts on this!
Thanks for the critique! Here’s a breakdown of the points raised:
-Who wants to drive across town to inspect a €50 item?
The focus is on mid to high-value, preferably niche items. Lower-value goods often don’t justify the costs involved in driving and the time spent on validation.
-Can a random broker validate a luxury watch?
Not all brokers have the necessary expertise to validate every item, especially luxury goods. The proposal is to enhance the current system by assigning brokers based on item categories. This specialization will be particularly effective when there are enough brokers for specific categories, such as watches.
- Physical validation adds days to trades.
While physical validation can slow things down, brokers who fail to validate effectively will phase out over time, ensuring that only those with the right expertise remain. It should be economically infeasible to accept assignment, where you have no expertise. This approach aims to streamline the validation process.
-Fees might price out low-value items.
Focusing on mid to high-value items helps avoid the issue of fees pricing out lower-value goods.
Additionally, this idea is designed to integrate into existing niches where validation matters significantly, like trading cards, electronics, watches, and sneakers. Numerous businesses already specialize in validating these items and have the necessary expertise to navigate legal requirements.
In practice, anyone with sufficient funds can become a broker. The pseudo-random selection process means that the probability of Broker A being chosen to audit or inspect an item is positive. If Broker A accepts and validates an item they are unfamiliar with, regardless of its actual validity, the likelihood of a dispute arising increases. Since Broker A lacks knowledge about the item, proving their case becomes challenging, potentially resulting in financial losses. Over time, this situation should lead to a pool of brokers with expertise. Consequently, the system is likely to attract a continuous stream of experts, as expertise will prove itself financially advantageous.
If A could gain sufficient funds through expertise in one area (by way of validating contracts), could it feign/game expertise in area B by having enough funds to recoup the losses from disputes? Or would such a situation be prevented?
