UTRUST

[yeswepump]

I'm a little confused about the dates. I just found out that registered users until yesterday were having a 20% bonus:

https://medium.com/@UTRUST/early-supporter-reward-e9a862208b7f - but I missed that!

I think, especially on Twitter, there are too many information: maybe it's better less tweet with more clear info?

[Alan5530]

looks good!We need more information about your team as so a big project need a professional development.

[Rigorous]

I've read about developers whose software is being bought with stolen credit cards. The buyer gets the software for free, but the kicker is when the payment processor finds out the card is stolen, it charges the software developer! So the developer doesn't only have his software stolen, which will then probably end up on the internet as a free download, but the developer also has to pay the credit card company on top of it.

Can Utrust solve that problem?

I'm honestly not quite sure this applies here since credit cards have chargebacks and crypto does not. UTRUST will not protect users from fraudulent activities on their side, but only from fraudulent sellers. If you lose your private keys, this is still your responsibility.

It's exactly the chargeback mechanism that hurts sellers that have their software pirated with stolen credit cards. You're saying paying with crypto will protect the sellers, so exposure to chargeback risk is covered, but buyers prefer the buyer protection from credit cards and Paypal. If Utrust can bridge that gap, that would be positive for both parties.

[cantdecide]

I've read about developers whose software is being bought with stolen credit cards. The buyer gets the software for free, but the kicker is when the payment processor finds out the card is stolen, it charges the software developer! So the developer doesn't only have his software stolen, which will then probably end up on the internet as a free download, but the developer also has to pay the credit card company on top of it.

Can Utrust solve that problem?

I'm honestly not quite sure this applies here since credit cards have chargebacks and crypto does not. UTRUST will not protect users from fraudulent activities on their side, but only from fraudulent sellers. If you lose your private keys, this is still your responsibility.

It's exactly the chargeback mechanism that hurts sellers that have their software pirated with stolen credit cards. You're saying paying with crypto will protect the sellers, so exposure to chargeback risk is covered, but buyers prefer the buyer protection from credit cards and Paypal. If Utrust can bridge that gap, that would be positive for both parties.

Yeah but for example Paypal also give the option to decide if you want to have the protection (for fees) or if you don't want them (without fees). But the worst part about this is, that if the buyer wants the protection, the seller has to pay for it lol it would be cool to give people the choise too at UTrust but with the option that buyer, who wants the protection, would be charged. But protection is really a nice thing. I hope they could fill the gab for this problems stated above.

[Rigorous]

Yeah but for example Paypal also give the option to decide if you want to have the protection (for fees) or if you don't want them (without fees). But the worst part about this is, that if the buyer wants the protection, the seller has to pay for it lol

That can't possibly be right. Do you have a source for that? Why would the buyer buy without protection if the seller pays for it anyway? And why have that choice in the first place?

it would be cool to give people the choise too at UTrust but with the option that buyer, who wants the protection, would be charged. But protection is really a nice thing. I hope they could fill the gab for this problems stated above.

In my opinion the best thing would be to have the protection built-in to the system at a reasonable fee. Presenting the user a choice for buyer protection will add another hurdle to the order process ("Do I want buyer protection? This is taking way too long, I just want to pay.") and it plants a negative thought in the buyer's mind ("So you're saying I could be scammed?")

[viljy]

This platform is something like a guarantor in transactions, as far as I understand. That is, in some ways this is a third party in the decentralized crypto environment. That is the regulator. What is the strength of crypto currency? In unconditional payments. It and refers to cash. But it does not apply to banking operations, where everything can be canceled, protested, arrested. Therefore, governments are trying to limit the turnover of cash in order to fully control the means of the people. Cash is freedom. Crypto currency is freedom. The responsibility for payment lies with the payer. And here it is supposed to return payments, I understood correctly? That is, protection "fool". That is, it is kind of paternalism. Immanuel Kant said paternalism of "the greatest despotism that you can imagine".
And in white paper, I did not find a clear mechanism for resolving disputes. Instead, there is a description of the mechanism of the arbitration court. Can be months to resolve the dispute on the return. So what's the innovation then?
But if you are scammers yourself, this will be the best joke. Then who will return the payments for the ICO? There is nobody! This is a joke of course.

[the_donald]

I'm a little confused about the dates. I just found out that registered users until yesterday were having a 20% bonus:

https://medium.com/@UTRUST/early-supporter-reward-e9a862208b7f - but I missed that!

I think, especially on Twitter, there are too many information: maybe it's better less tweet with more clear info?

the ICO was open for early investors with a big bonus. not sure I like it, but it's their decision.

[Jay2408]

Yeah but for example Paypal also give the option to decide if you want to have the protection (for fees) or if you don't want them (without fees). But the worst part about this is, that if the buyer wants the protection, the seller has to pay for it lol

That can't possibly be right. Do you have a source for that? Why would the buyer buy without protection if the seller pays for it anyway? And why have that choice in the first place?

it would be cool to give people the choise too at UTrust but with the option that buyer, who wants the protection, would be charged. But protection is really a nice thing. I hope they could fill the gab for this problems stated above.

In my opinion the best thing would be to have the protection built-in to the system at a reasonable fee. Presenting the user a choice for buyer protection will add another hurdle to the order process ("Do I want buyer protection? This is taking way too long, I just want to pay.") and it plants a negative thought in the buyer's mind ("So you're saying I could be scammed?")

I understood from WP that the payed amount will be held in escrow for up to several days, depending on the previous performance of the seller. Isn't that a kind of protection for the buyer?

[levyashin]

Own token is ERC20, right? How come that it doesn't charge fees? Are they paid by UTRUST itself? If no, enlight me please

Yes, it's an ERC-20 token. What do you mean by no fees - when making a purchase with UTRUST tokens?

Don't Erc tokens need some gas to move it? Utrust is using ethereum blockchain so there should be some fee for transactions?

[TeraBite]

looks good!We need more information about your team as so a big project need a professional development.

https://utrust.io/team

You find all information by visiting the given link this is nice project as the potential of this project is high I also believe this will be next huge thing when this platform will get operational.

[terrorJR]

Own token is ERC20, right? How come that it doesn't charge fees? Are they paid by UTRUST itself? If no, enlight me please

Yes, it's an ERC-20 token. What do you mean by no fees - when making a purchase with UTRUST tokens?

Don't Erc tokens need some gas to move it? Utrust is using ethereum blockchain so there should be some fee for transactions?

yes sure you need fees/GAS every you make transaction
over 200000 GAS its good can make your tx confrimed

[Sozialtourist]

Just finished reading the whitepaper and I must say I really like the idea behind this project. As someone who already got chargebacked once on PayPal I know it needs a solution for this issue. Great that UTRUST can offer one.

[rejosh]

I'm a little confused about the dates. I just found out that registered users until yesterday were having a 20% bonus:

https://medium.com/@UTRUST/early-supporter-reward-e9a862208b7f - but I missed that!

I think, especially on Twitter, there are too many information: maybe it's better less tweet with more clear info?

Why don’t you ask the guys in their slack. They are very good and very active in the slack and social media. They may consider you in their whitelist for the 20% bonus. I saw some people request this and they have approved them. You just have to tell them that you haven’t seen this promotion untle today. I personally think even .065 is still a good price for the token. It will easily reach .1 when it hit the market.  

[Kenway]

Just finished reading the whitepaper and I must say I really like the idea behind this project. As someone who already got chargebacked once on PayPal I know it needs a solution for this issue. Great that UTRUST can offer one.

yeah ,ba baba la ,you type so many words ,what do you want to say , will you invest Utrust or just want to update your activty?

[Charles T.]

UTRUST: the new payment processor that accepts the main crypotcurrencies

[tuhadzish]

Watching this activity is almost enough to burn calories.Almost!!!; -)

[Rigorous]

In my opinion the best thing would be to have the protection built-in to the system at a reasonable fee. Presenting the user a choice for buyer protection will add another hurdle to the order process ("Do I want buyer protection? This is taking way too long, I just want to pay.") and it plants a negative thought in the buyer's mind ("So you're saying I could be scammed?")

I understood from WP that the payed amount will be held in escrow for up to several days, depending on the previous performance of the seller. Isn't that a kind of protection for the buyer?

You are right. In fact escrow protects both parties. The seller is assured that the money is available and the buyer is ensured the seller won't get the money without sending the product. But with cryptocurrencies the seller already had the advantage of guaranteed payment, so that point is moot.

Now I wonder why PayPal didn't offer an escrow service, that would have saved sellers a lot of pain and money. There's escrow.com that accepts PayPal as payment, meaning it's technically and legally possible.

[cantdecide]

Yeah but for example Paypal also give the option to decide if you want to have the protection (for fees) or if you don't want them (without fees). But the worst part about this is, that if the buyer wants the protection, the seller has to pay for it lol

That can't possibly be right. Do you have a source for that? Why would the buyer buy without protection if the seller pays for it anyway? And why have that choice in the first place?

Ah sorry, I mixed it up. Of course if you buy with a marketplace implementing you can't choose this option. But if you for example sell something on other platforms. In Germany we have for example a sell platform of ebay where you don't sell something in auctions but in normal sell offer, and people can give you a message if they want to buy. I sold there a lot of used stuff I had no use anylonger and mainly got payments via paypal. And if you send money then from buyer to seller they can decide to make it as a friend/family transfer or normal with fees and protection, because the payment process is not in the platform. If they would choose for normal transfer the money get reduced by the fee.

it would be cool to give people the choise too at UTrust but with the option that buyer, who wants the protection, would be charged. But protection is really a nice thing. I hope they could fill the gab for this problems stated above.

In my opinion the best thing would be to have the protection built-in to the system at a reasonable fee. Presenting the user a choice for buyer protection will add another hurdle to the order process ("Do I want buyer protection? This is taking way too long, I just want to pay.") and it plants a negative thought in the buyer's mind ("So you're saying I could be scammed?")

That's of course true, but I think people should have the option to choose themself if they want to pay more for protection or not. You also don't want to get an insurence by force, don't you? Of course something can happen, so they always can choose to go the saver way. But for example if you work with someone where you already bought a lot of stuff and who you trust, maybe there is no need to pay the extra fee.

[Sozialtourist]

Just finished reading the whitepaper and I must say I really like the idea behind this project. As someone who already got chargebacked once on PayPal I know it needs a solution for this issue. Great that UTRUST can offer one.

yeah ,ba baba la ,you type so many words ,what do you want to say , will you invest Utrust or just want to update your activty?

I don‘t know what‘s your problem?! I just said the project looks solid for me and from my own experience I can see the need of an alternative to PayPal.

But yeah, back to topic.

Can anyone tell me how they will handle refunds after the seller received his funds from the escrow? When the buyer for example decides to return the goods he purchased after a week and originally payed 0.1 Bitcoin ($400 at the time of the purchase). Will he get back his 0,2 Bitcoin or $400 dollar worth of Bitcoin at the time of the return?
When the seller refunds the $400 in Bitcoin to the buyer, are there conversion fees (now for the seller) as well?

[tiger5056]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5r1txwwu7bc&feature=youtu.be last week stream is here.