(EDIT: as you said above offering escrow as an option sounds the best way.. even 'requiring businesses to offer it as an option' could be a problem)
3) Businesses will be required to use our insured escrow services to forward payments, at no additional cost to consumer or merchant.
That seems like a non-starter to me.
Routing all payments via a central system is technically fragile, politically risky, innovation unfriendly and impractical to set up for all the various foreign currencies & payment systems out there.
Perhaps you meant only for Bitcoin transactions.. but I suspect it will be the minority of enterprises that are truly 'pure Bitcoin'.
For the sort of business I have in mind - the escrow would be complex - sometimes requiring only part payment back to the client.
Escrow services based on a written escrow agreement where the UABB can easily determine fulfillment of conditions are one thing..
but are you really going to intermediate in all that in a high-volume transaction environment?
Requiring businesses to give their customers an *option* to route payments via the escrow may be nice for specific types of transaction.
Escrow only caters for a subset of the possible services for which someone might 'hand over' bitcoins in expectation of a set of services.
The point at which actual 'payment' occurs and value changes hands is service specific.
How you can require 'at no additional cost' I don't know. Even with pure Bitcoin transactions there will ultimately be fees.
Maybe all you meant is that when the business and customer do both choose to use your escrow - the business doesn't charge an additional fee above what the network charges?
If so.. sorry for my rambling above, but it wasn't clear
P.S nice to see the 'about us' improvements on the UABB site.
