Since the contract's token balance is only required to be as much as the amount the seller is supposed to be paid, a sour buyer could always shorten the ration of the seller by sending the escrow into dispute since the arbiterFee
will always be removed from the seller's pay.
Since total amount of tokens required to be sent to the contract is that which the seller is supposed to be paid, a sour buyer can shorten the ration of the seller by sending the escrow into dispute.
This means that only the buyer pays for dispute resolution and since the arbiterFee
is not capped, the loss will be as little or as much as the arbiterFee.
The maximum the seller would get after forced arbitration will be at most price - arbiterFee
and if the arbiterFee
is high enough, the seller's loss could potentially be high.
A good solution would be to ensure that the arbiterFee
plus price
is sent to the contract by the buyer. The arbiter could then split the fees based on fault by varying the buyerAward
in the resolveDispute
function.
This will also mean the confirmReceipt
function would be modified to allow only the price to be transferred to the seller and the balance be transferred to buyer
The contest is live. Earn rewards by submitting a finding.
This is your time to appeal against judgements on your submissions.
Appeals are being carefully reviewed by our judges.