- Why would someone be willing to pay more for an item because escrow is used?
The same reason anyone pays a premium - for protection against fraud.
Topic: Is escrowing for yourself using a secret alt OK? - page 9. (Read 13138 times)
The same reason anyone pays a premium - for protection against fraud.
There are two points that no one has even attempted to address:
- Why would someone be not willing to send first to a person when conducting a trade, if they would trust them enough to use them as escrow?
- Why would someone be willing to pay more for an item because escrow is used?
You are not paying for a neutral third party, the cost of using an escrow is factored into the cost of the item you are trading.
If people weren't paying for a neutral third party, why did you offer to refund the escrow fee when it became clear that you weren't a neutral third party?
You have pointed out how this would be different then doing a direct trade, but you fail to document why someone would not be willing to engage in a direct trade with someone when they are willing to trust them to act as an escrow agent.
They may be willing to trade directly with you, but you didn't give them enough information to select that option.
You are not paying for a neutral third party, the cost of using an escrow is factored into the cost of the item you are trading.
The very definition of escrow implies a third party. You are paying a premium for protection against scammers. When you are both the escrow and buyer/seller you provide no protection at all, so you are not entitled to any fee at all. You are taking fees under false pretenses, and it really bothers me that you don't see that.
This is just Canadian insurance law - not sure about the other countries, but I'm sure they are similar.
In other words:
-You believe a widget is worth $100
-If you trust the person enough to pay first without escrow, then you would not pay $101 for the widget
-If you trust the person enough to pay them first without escrow, then you would be willing to pay $100 for the widget
-If you do not trust the person enough to pay them first without escrow, then the total amount you will be willing to pay is $101
If this is your argument, then why are you willing to pay more for the widget if you are using escrow?
if i sell you an item and say it is new and original packaged and the item you received is used and not original packaged wouldnt you call me a scammer?
even when i tell you that i treated that item well and it is as good as new and there is no difference if original packaged or not... thats your argument regarding escrow.
you redefine the word "escrow" to fit your needs. look it up in a dictionary!
If this is your argument, then why are you willing to pay more for the widget if you are using escrow?
The same reason anyone pays a premium - for protection against fraud.
You are not paying for a neutral third party, the cost of using an escrow is factored into the cost of the item you are trading.
The very definition of escrow implies a third party. You are paying a premium for protection against scammers. When you are both the escrow and buyer/seller you provide no protection at all, so you are not entitled to any fee at all. You are taking fees under false pretenses, and it really bothers me that you don't see that.
This is just Canadian insurance law - not sure about the other countries, but I'm sure they are similar.
In other words:
-You believe a widget is worth $100
-If you trust the person enough to pay first without escrow, then you would not pay $101 for the widget
-If you trust the person enough to pay them first without escrow, then you would be willing to pay $100 for the widget
-If you do not trust the person enough to pay them first without escrow, then the total amount you will be willing to pay is $101
If this is your argument, then why are you willing to pay more for the widget if you are using escrow?
You are not paying for a neutral third party, the cost of using an escrow is factored into the cost of the item you are trading.
The very definition of escrow implies a third party. You are paying a premium for protection against scammers. When you are both the escrow and buyer/seller you provide no protection at all, so you are not entitled to any fee at all. You are taking fees under false pretenses, and it really bothers me that you don't see that.
This is just Canadian insurance law - not sure about the other countries, but I'm sure they are similar.
Mind blowing I agree...
You are not paying for a neutral third party, the cost of using an escrow is factored into the cost of the item you are trading.
The very definition of escrow implies a third party. You are paying a premium for protection against scammers. When you are both the escrow and buyer/seller you provide no protection at all, so you are not entitled to any fee at all. You are taking fees under false pretenses, and it really bothers me that you don't see that.
This is just Canadian insurance law - not sure about the other countries, but I'm sure they are similar.
Do you follow that argument? Which of the five lines do you disagree with?
You quoted my questions but didn't answer either of them.
You have pointed out how this would be different then doing a direct trade, but you fail to document why someone would not be willing to engage in a direct trade with someone when they are willing to trust them to act as an escrow agent.
seriously, i cant stop myself laughing when i read QS personal message under his avatar
"Safe and professional escrow goo.gl/ZI2m0Q"
ROFLMAO
"Safe and professional escrow goo.gl/ZI2m0Q"
ROFLMAO
WTF?
I'm going to need a PGP-clearsigned YES or NO answer, from Quickseller, to the following question:
Did you, Quickseller, engage in 1 or more trades where any party other than you was led to believe that there were 3 parties with 3 different DNA profiles involved in the trade (1-buyer, 2-seller 3-escrow agent), but in reality there were only 2?
YES or NO?
I'm going to need a PGP-clearsigned YES or NO answer, from Quickseller, to the following question:
Did you, Quickseller, engage in 1 or more trades where any party other than you was led to believe that there were 3 parties with 3 different DNA profiles involved in the trade (1-buyer, 2-seller 3-escrow agent), but in reality there were only 2?
YES or NO?
Do you follow that argument? Which of the five lines do you disagree with?
You quoted my questions but didn't answer either of them.
You have failed to describe how this would be any different then if this was a direct trade.
It isn't, and that is the point.
* The buyer is paying because he wants it to be different than a direct trade.
* He is paying for an impartial escrow agent.
* He is getting an escrow agent who is secretly also the seller.
* So he isn't getting what he paid for.
* That is why it isn't fair.
Do you follow that argument? Which of the five lines do you disagree with?
-The widget is not worth $101 to him.
-If he cannot buy the widget for less then, or equal to $100 then he will not buy it.
-If the buyer trusts the seller with $100 then he will not request to use escrow.
Conversely:
-The seller wants to sell her widget for at least $95
-If the seller cannot get at least $95 for a widget then she will not sell it
-If the seller trusts the buyer with at least $95 then she will ship the widget to the buyer without first having payment secured by escrow.
We've seen this before from QS, something about valuing relationships in currency seems to be a kind of foundation of his philosophy. Remember, dooglus, when he wrote that paragraph about exactly how much btc I should or shouldn't be trusted with? Again and again in this thread he seems to fail to understand that everyone comes with biases, that his own opinion of what is just is inherently skewed in his own favor (as everyone's), and that the point of a neutral party isn't only how much money you trust them with, but whether they're actually neutral.
QS, can you actually look at dooglus' five lines and say where you disagree or where you think it's not relevant or important? It's simple and succinctly captures one side of the debate so if you could address it I honestly think it might help to elucidate the competing philosophies here.
You have failed to describe how this would be any different then if this was a direct trade.
It isn't, and that is the point.
* The buyer is paying because he wants it to be different than a direct trade.
* He is paying for an impartial escrow agent.
* He is getting an escrow agent who is secretly also the seller.
* So he isn't getting what he paid for.
* That is why it isn't fair.
Do you follow that argument? Which of the five lines do you disagree with?
-The widget is not worth $101 to him.
-If he cannot buy the widget for less then, or equal to $100 then he will not buy it.
-If the buyer trusts the seller with $100 then he will not request to use escrow.
Conversely:
-The seller wants to sell her widget for at least $95
-If the seller cannot get at least $95 for a widget then she will not sell it
-If the seller trusts the buyer with at least $95 then she will ship the widget to the buyer without first having payment secured by escrow.
You have failed to describe how this would be any different then if this was a direct trade.
It isn't, and that is the point.
* The buyer is paying because he wants it to be different than a direct trade.
* He is paying for an impartial escrow agent.
* He is getting an escrow agent who is secretly also the seller.
* So he isn't getting what he paid for.
* That is why it isn't fair.
Do you follow that argument? Which of the five lines do you disagree with?
--snip--
- Naughtywolf works as a postman delivering to BadDaddybear.
- Naughtywolf has noticed a number of packages in recent times being delivered to BadDaddybear, so he opens this one package (with the special honey) and is delighted.
- Naughtywolf helps himself to the honey but still proceeds to deliver an empty package.
--snip--
- insurance refuses to pay because of tracking and signed acceptance of delivery.
--snip--
That is not how postal insurance works. Just because a package is signed for, it does not mean that an insurance claim would be denied for a damaged parcel (which would apply in your scenario). - Naughtywolf works as a postman delivering to BadDaddybear.
- Naughtywolf has noticed a number of packages in recent times being delivered to BadDaddybear, so he opens this one package (with the special honey) and is delighted.
- Naughtywolf helps himself to the honey but still proceeds to deliver an empty package.
--snip--
- insurance refuses to pay because of tracking and signed acceptance of delivery.
--snip--
I really have not heard this kind of scenario actually ever happening. It would also be unlikely that the mail carrier only steal the contents of a single parcel, so the insurance company would likely have multiple reports of thefts/damage from a common mail carrier.
The sending party is generally going to be the insured party.
That all may be case.^
The point I was trying to make was.."sometimes things go wrong through no fault of either party".
Remember that there are very rarely disputes when escrowing deals. If something is stolen by the buyers mailman (as in your example), then this would most likely not be the first nor last time something like this happens, and the buyer would agree to release the entire escrow amount to the seller. In an opposite example, if the seller has had problems with the mail in similar ways, then the seller should voluntarily release the entire amount of escrow back to the buyer.
--snip--
- Naughtywolf works as a postman delivering to BadDaddybear.
- Naughtywolf has noticed a number of packages in recent times being delivered to BadDaddybear, so he opens this one package (with the special honey) and is delighted.
- Naughtywolf helps himself to the honey but still proceeds to deliver an empty package.
--snip--
- insurance refuses to pay because of tracking and signed acceptance of delivery.
--snip--
That is not how postal insurance works. Just because a package is signed for, it does not mean that an insurance claim would be denied for a damaged parcel (which would apply in your scenario). - Naughtywolf works as a postman delivering to BadDaddybear.
- Naughtywolf has noticed a number of packages in recent times being delivered to BadDaddybear, so he opens this one package (with the special honey) and is delighted.
- Naughtywolf helps himself to the honey but still proceeds to deliver an empty package.
--snip--
- insurance refuses to pay because of tracking and signed acceptance of delivery.
--snip--
I really have not heard this kind of scenario actually ever happening. It would also be unlikely that the mail carrier only steal the contents of a single parcel, so the insurance company would likely have multiple reports of thefts/damage from a common mail carrier.
The sending party is generally going to be the insured party.
That all may be case.^
The point I was trying to make was.."sometimes things go wrong through no fault of either party".
--snip--
- Naughtywolf works as a postman delivering to BadDaddybear.
- Naughtywolf has noticed a number of packages in recent times being delivered to BadDaddybear, so he opens this one package (with the special honey) and is delighted.
- Naughtywolf helps himself to the honey but still proceeds to deliver an empty package.
--snip--
- insurance refuses to pay because of tracking and signed acceptance of delivery.
--snip--
That is not how postal insurance works. Just because a package is signed for, it does not mean that an insurance claim would be denied for a damaged parcel (which would apply in your scenario). - Naughtywolf works as a postman delivering to BadDaddybear.
- Naughtywolf has noticed a number of packages in recent times being delivered to BadDaddybear, so he opens this one package (with the special honey) and is delighted.
- Naughtywolf helps himself to the honey but still proceeds to deliver an empty package.
--snip--
- insurance refuses to pay because of tracking and signed acceptance of delivery.
--snip--
I really have not heard this kind of scenario actually ever happening. It would also be unlikely that the mail carrier only steal the contents of a single parcel, so the insurance company would likely have multiple reports of thefts/damage from a common mail carrier.
The sending party is generally going to be the insured party.
Jump to: