Clearly it's dishonest to pretend to offer an "escrow" for a trade when it's really you trading. Any honest person would simply choose another escrow in that situation in order to follow an ethical principal. I do have two replies for quickseller tho:
The risks are exactly the same as if you do a direct trade. However if there is some kind of communication misunderstanding, and you did not clarify these details (as an escrow) then your reputation will be permanently damaged because you did not create a safe trading environment.
If you are doing a direct trade and there is a communication issue, then the answer is "sorry" and your reputation may or may not be affected based on your ability to weasel your way out of the situation.
Here QS shows an inability to look at more than one side of the scenario. As escrow/trader, he says "self-escrow is just like not having an escrow, I manage the extra risk and pocket the fee". He seems to fail to see that the other party is paying for the service of a third party and isn't getting it. He only considers scenarios in which he's right and knows all the pieces, so he can't seem to imagine that someone might have a valid dispute with him, he can't see the value of the third party for the other person because he knows he's always right. I love how he characterizes a "communication issue" in terms of someone else's ability to weasel out of a situation. It's impossible for him to consider scenarios in which the other party actually might have a point.
Do you think that is all that different from choosing someone you are close friends with as an escrow? Do you think that it might be difficult for an escrow to be 100% unbiased if you are close friends with the escrow? My understanding is that you are close with Salty, and I see that you suggested using him as escrow
here.
It is also my understanding that you are close to MRKLYE, to the point that (if my memory serves me right) you left a negative rating against someone who was harassing him. However he is offering your escrow services
here.
There is not a 1:1 comparison between these scenarios and escrowing your own deal, however they are very similar. Additionally, it is possible that the person you are trading with may not know you are close.
Here QS actualy has an interesting and valid point. The poll asks us about self-escrow and we all cry "no! it needs to be a neutral, third party". QS says, not all third parties are neutral, and he has a point. To be fair to QS's point, I believe that ethical escrows probably ought to avoid escrowing for their friends, or at the very minimum, warn the other party about their connection to one of the parties beforehand. If Salty is besties with BAC and will be escrowing his deal, in my opinion, Salty ought to tell BAC's trading partner, "btw, I have a long and tight friendship with BAC, I'll do my best to honor my duty as a third party here, but you should know about my connection to him". That's merely full disclosure. After such disclosure, the other party might say to BAC, let's use another escrow, or not, but at least they'd go into it with their eyes open.
To summarize, an escrow should be a third-party, that's a necessary, but not sufficient criterion for an ethical escrow. In my opinion, an escrow should also be neutral and should disclose potential biases insofar as they can. Just like a judge has to recuse themselves in a case in which they have a personal interest, escrows shouldn't be escrowing for their mother.