Looking for trusted agents for escrow and arbitration

[henry_p]

I am looking for independent trusted agents (members with a reputation) to offer escrow and/or arbitration services on-demand.

Right-now, I want to crowdfund some projects, and I need some trusted members to prevent me from screwing anyone as I have no reputation whatsoever. This prompts this quest, yet the goal is for such service to be available to anyone who may (yet hopefully won't) need arbitration.

Unless there actually is a dispute, no agent is involved. i.e. No work, no pay, nor any knowledge that anything happened.

If there is a dispute, any party can then contact the relevant agent(s) to enforce their contracts and gets paid according to each agent's rule.

The task involves:
Signing the release or returns of funds for a fee on demand, and/or
Making a decision or statement for arbitration purposes.

Such service is to be paid according to whatever schedule determined by the agent offering the service.

The decision making and enforcement may be separate. For example Alice may investigate and render a decision, and Bob can enforces whatever decision is made by Alice. While involving multiple agents, it can provide much more flexibility, such as allowing appeals or a broader -- expertise.

The weakness (which is simply a compromise) is the intervention of humans. The advantage is that it allows complex contracts while avoiding the implementation of smart contracts and the risks posed by any potential bugs or back-door.

The goal is that no one ever uses these services for the same reason nobody is producing invalid blocks.

It requires that proper contracts are written, agreed and signed by all participants, so that proof can be provided to agent(s) in case of arbitration.

As for the fees, scope (expertise) and rules, that is up to each agents.

Please makes your offer if you want to be such an agent, and/or share the names/usernames of whoever you trust.

[BitMaxz]

There are many trusted escrows here on the forum if you use the search box or magnifying glass above you can find them.

Anyway, I search a list of escrows but last updated January 2021 you can check them from this link below

- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=276897.0

[henry_p]

There are many trusted escrows here on the forum if you use the search box or magnifying glass above you can find them.

Anyway, I search a list of escrows but last updated January 2021 you can check them from this link below

- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=276897.0

That does not fit what I described. The escrow providers in that list must be involved even when there is no dispute, take custody of the funds, and charge some fee regardless.

I used the word "escrow" for lack of a better word, referring to a third party signer for enforcing arbitration.

Thanks for the link though!

[Darker45]

There are many trusted escrows here on the forum if you use the search box or magnifying glass above you can find them.

Anyway, I search a list of escrows but last updated January 2021 you can check them from this link below

- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=276897.0

That does not fit what I described. The escrow providers in that list must be involved even when there is no dispute, take custody of the funds, and charge some fee regardless.

I used the word "escrow" for lack of a better word, referring to a third party signer for enforcing arbitration.

Thanks for the link though!

I don't quite understand you. What do you mean "escrow providers in that list must be involved even when there is no dispute, take custody of the funds, and charge some fee regardless?" Of course, the escrow will be involved because he/she is the one who holds the funds and executes the agreement of both or all parties.

I'm afraid you cannot find, much less hire, an arbiter here. I haven't heard of a trusted member here who is only offering arbitration services. Escrows are already arbiters so to speak because they will decide where the funds go should a conflict arise. But the escrow's decision is based on the contract agreed by all parties involved.

It would be much more efficient to hire an escrow-cum-arbiter rather than hire a separate arbiter and a separate escrow. But you cannot anymore apply the no work, no pay condition because by just merely keeping the funds, there is already a certain fee.

[henry_p]

Of course, the escrow will be involved because he/she is the one who holds the funds and executes the agreement of both or all parties.

That is why I said that I used the word escrow for lack of a better word.

In a court system, people sign contract outside of the court, without any judge being involved. If and only if there is a dispute, then one party will bring the contract to the court for a judge to make a ruling. So I guess that "judge" would be a more appropriate word for what I am talking about.

Say Alice and Bob enter a contract, create a multi-sig from which any 2-of-3 can spend the funds, i.e. Alice, Bob and Charlie, where Charlie is a judge.

Alice and Bob sign a contract (with pubKey) and agree that Charlie will be the arbiter if a conflict were to arise, then send the funds to the multi-sig. Meanwhile, as relevant, they sign their communication.

If everything goes well, Alice and Bob cooperatively move the funds as per the contract.

Only if there is a conflict, then either Alice or Bob can hire Charlie, provide him with the contract, the signature and any other relevant information for Charlie to make a decision. Charlie can then co-sign the transaction to enforce the contract.

Unlike with traditional escrow, Charlie does not need to know about even the existence of a contract, unless there actually is a conflict to resolve. Also, Charlie cannot steal the funds without the cooperation of Alice or Bob.

Each judge set his own rules, expertise, etc. For example, he may offer to rule on weather or not a transaction has happened on some blockchain, allowing cross-chain swap without having to implement atomic-swap programmatically.  In case of hiring someone to write some code, a judge could specialize in verifying that the work has been done, or assessing how much of the work has been done.

It can easily get much more flexible, but I don't want to risk adding confusion.... at least yet.

I hope that helps clarifying.

[AB de Royse777]

Say Alice and Bob enter a contract, create a multi-sig from which any 2-of-3 can spend the funds, i.e. Alice, Bob and Charlie, where Charlie is a judge.

Alice and Bob sign a contract (with pubKey) and agree that Charlie will be the arbiter if a conflict were to arise, then send the funds to the multi-sig. Meanwhile, as relevant, they sign their communication.

If everything goes well, Alice and Bob cooperatively move the funds as per the contract.

Only if there is a conflict, then either Alice or Bob can hire Charlie, provide him with the contract, the signature and any other relevant information for Charlie to make a decision. Charlie can then co-sign the transaction to enforce the contract.

Unlike with traditional escrow, Charlie does not need to know about even the existence of a contract, unless there actually is a conflict to resolve. Also, Charlie cannot steal the funds without the cooperation of Alice or Bob.

Each judge set his own rules, expertise, etc. For example, he may offer to rule on weather or not a transaction has happened on some blockchain, allowing cross-chain swap without having to implement atomic-swap programmatically.  In case of hiring someone to write some code, a judge could specialize in verifying that the work has been done, or assessing how much of the work has been done.

It can easily get much more flexible, but I don't want to risk adding confusion.... at least yet.

This is still escrow.

I think by escrow you are thinking to send fund to Charlie.  Every time when Alice and Bob do a deal, Charlie will be doing his job to pay. That's only standard form of escrow but it's not very good when the deal has large sum of amount. But with a multi sign escrow where more than one party (at - least three) is more reliable. In case anything happen to one party you have other two to agree and move the fund.

Anyway, I can be your Charlie for up to 1 BTC but I will need to know what kind of items you will be trading and what is in it for me too. Overall I need to know your terms of business.

[Darker45]

~snip~

That is why I said that I used the word escrow for lack of a better word.

In a court system, people sign contract outside of the court, without any judge being involved. If and only if there is a dispute, then one party will bring the contract to the court for a judge to make a ruling. So I guess that "judge" would be a more appropriate word for what I am talking about.

Say Alice and Bob enter a contract, create a multi-sig from which any 2-of-3 can spend the funds, i.e. Alice, Bob and Charlie, where Charlie is a judge.

Alice and Bob sign a contract (with pubKey) and agree that Charlie will be the arbiter if a conflict were to arise, then send the funds to the multi-sig. Meanwhile, as relevant, they sign their communication.

If everything goes well, Alice and Bob cooperatively move the funds as per the contract.

Only if there is a conflict, then either Alice or Bob can hire Charlie, provide him with the contract, the signature and any other relevant information for Charlie to make a decision. Charlie can then co-sign the transaction to enforce the contract.

Unlike with traditional escrow, Charlie does not need to know about even the existence of a contract, unless there actually is a conflict to resolve. Also, Charlie cannot steal the funds without the cooperation of Alice or Bob.

Each judge set his own rules, expertise, etc. For example, he may offer to rule on weather or not a transaction has happened on some blockchain, allowing cross-chain swap without having to implement atomic-swap programmatically.  In case of hiring someone to write some code, a judge could specialize in verifying that the work has been done, or assessing how much of the work has been done.

It can easily get much more flexible, but I don't want to risk adding confusion.... at least yet.

I hope that helps clarifying.

Yeah, I actually got your point. I know that you need an arbiter or a judge. Again, I'm not sure if there is a particular user in this forum who is offering such service, unless perhaps if you personally communicate with some and offer this job. There are probably users here who will welcome such task. Royse777 here is now coming forward. But since you mentioned about expertise, the chosen arbiter should be carefully selected according to the specific transaction so as to arrive at a fair and objective judgement should there be a conflict.

[henry_p]

It would be much more efficient to hire an escrow-cum-arbiter rather than hire a separate arbiter and a separate escrow.

The reason to separate enforcement and judgment has to do with the fact that whoever can be trusted with handling funds and with its honesty and general judgement may not have, themselves, the expertise for a specific case. You can see it as hiring experts or lawyers to make a case to a judge. The judge doesn't know about the topic, but will consider experts and witnesses to make a ruling.

The idea is to have a system that can also handle case that are outside the scope of what could have originally been anticipated.

..what is in it for me...

In an ideal world, everyone is honest and collaboratively complete everything, and you get nothing while having nothing to do. However, if a conflict arise, you get paid whatever you charge for whatever it is that you are offering to do. I know that is still vague, and that is for the sake of flexibility.

The first thing I would use it for is to fund open-source software, namely contributing to adding features to existing wallets.

Essentially, I propose a feature, people who want to see that feature implemented commit funds to some multi-sig, I hire developers to do the work, the work gets completed, everyone is happy, the funds are released cooperatively, and you didn't do anything. However, if the work doesn't get done, people are not happy and ask for their money back, you get hired, you find out that the developer can't show a working product, then you return the funds to the original contributors.

By the way, a Charlie can also offer to pre-approve contracts for a fee.

How much would you charge for reading and pre-approving a contract? (can be a range, depending)

How much would you charge for spending up to an hour looking at a case and make a ruling? (Again, it can be more complicated than a number)

A ruling would be something like:

• The work has been fully completed and the funds should be released in full; or
• The work has been partially and the [such] percentage of the funds should be released; or
• The work has not been done and the funds should be returned; or
• Any other statement as for why it is not possible to make one of the rulings above.

Splitting hair further...
Experts, may be hired (by either or both parties) to look into a case, write a report and make a recommendation.
All signed recommendations can be send to a judge for a final decision to be made.
And finally, an enforcer just do whatever the judge said.

Indeed, one entity may play more than one role.

So the escrow provider may just "apply the judgement of the judge (or judges) specified in the contract"
Experts may be approved either by a contract and/or by a judge.

[LoyceV]

The first thing I would use it for is to fund open-source software, namely contributing to adding features to existing wallets.

Essentially, I propose a feature, people who want to see that feature implemented commit funds to some multi-sig, I hire developers to do the work, the work gets completed, everyone is happy, the funds are released cooperatively, and you didn't do anything. However, if the work doesn't get done, people are not happy and ask for their money back, you get hired, you find out that the developer can't show a working product, then you return the funds to the original contributors.

If I'd act as an escrow, I wouldn't want to be in a situation where my judgement relies on anything else than hard facts. I can imagine a situation in which the developer says the product works, but I can't reproduce it because of different settings on my system. It wouldn't be the first time I can't get certain software to work, despite following guidelines.
If I come to the wrong conclusion, my "Switzerland" image gets tainted.

A ruling would be something like:

• The work has been fully completed and the funds should be released in full; or
• The work has been partially and the [such] percentage of the funds should be released; or
• The work has not been done and the funds should be returned; or
• Any other statement as for why it is not possible to make one of the rulings above.

Even with partial work done, it would be good to know the conditions for payment up-front. I can imagine a partial product is no use for the contributors, so they may not want to pay anything for that.

[davis196]

There are platforms like Bitrated,which try to provide such service(2-3 multisig wallets and human arbitration).
I have never tried this platform,but I know that they exist for several years.AFAIK,Bitrated was launched back in 2013.I cannot vouch for them.Finding a really legit and trusted escrow can be really difficult.
The human factor cannot be avoided and nobody can guarantee the legitimacy of the escrows/arbiters.
Crowfunding campaigns can be really messy,especially if the team behind the campaign can't provide a finished product.