Satoshi himself spoke against a third party system (also a basis behind decentralized cryptocurrency in general) in the bitcoin whitepaper:
Commerce on the Internet has come to rely almost exclusively on financial institutions serving as
trusted third parties to process electronic payments. While the system works well enough for
most transactions, it still suffers from the inherent weaknesses of the trust based model.
Cryptocurrency is a different thing, market is a different thing.
And if you look at the white paper, bitcoin is now more monopolized than ever, so who cares about Satoshi's ideals anyways?
Tell me how does a 2nd party system doesn't need trust? Either buyer or seller I still have to be honest, otherwise I can abuse it very simply. Both systems can be abused, but what I am saying is that you have a authority to solve your problem in 3rd party system (market operator). The marketplace will be decentralized enough, with no control of blocking etc.
So tell me, I ordered a physical good, the order arrived but I said it didn't, who has to be the judge here? Who will protect me? (If I am the seller) For me, I would only buy digital goods with such a system, that I can download instantly, otherwise I would always require a trusted middleman (the market operator in this case).
This is where I would say people would have to rely on a rating/review system and only stay with trusted sellers, which goes against not using a trust based model, but also not much alternative.
I don't really mind which market succeeds, and I think its helpful for people to have options should one or the other not be to an individual's liking.
But here is the problem, I have been in deepweb markets long enough to see even the most trusted sellers with over +1000 5 over 5 ratings tend to scam time to time. (They require FE - Finalize Early, so basically just because buyer has ++ rating you have to release the funds on the escrow and hope the seller send the goods)
I am excited to see this system in action but I do see a possibility for a problem where the seller is being malicious and has no intention of selling the product. Couldn't they get peoples crave stuck forever in the escrow just to be a dick? I would hope that a seller doing that would get a bad reputation quickly and people would not deal with them anymore. But how easily and quickly could this "prank" be duplicated and could it be an actual problem?
With market operators acting as middlemans, there shouldn't be those problems. That's what I am trying to tell.
2 party systems are best for the digital goods that you get instantly after payment.