[PAID TESTERS NEEDED] Zenland Escrow Contract | Custom Agents | Up to $20 (open)

[TryNinja]

edit: removing after 24h, didn't see Legendary was full

[libert19]

edit: removing after 24h, didn't see Legendary was full

Zenland should have made exception for you.

[DaNNy001]

Telegram: @DaNNy001x
Wallet address for payment: bc1q8y85d0kegf9y2g536acps0pjcdypk6yv8wu0pk

[Hatchy]

Telegram username: @Hatchy89
Btc wallet address:bc1q3s4jzryhp2lr7eynhlzvecx6egqmvq43w2ntqt
Ltc address: ltc1qypxrvppddhlf3vkfjfglpme7asmn9haxdqlemy

[Zenland]

The first contract of the second week has been created on Arbitrum with paid2 and further instructions are sent in PM.  

https://arbiscan.io/address/0x5194D97A7D9bc5E093AE6b8189c52873eEdfcC9b

We had some issues with creating contracts with Danydee, nelson4lov, and DubemIfedigbo001 which are being sorted out in PM.

thanks @TryNinja for the notice, remove after 24hours

edit: removing after 24h, didn't see Legendary was full

We highly value the opinions of reputable forum users and those who participated in previous rounds of Zenland beta tests. GxSTxV and TryNinja, please log in to Zenland App using a new Metamask address and post this address and your Telegram username in this thread. We will use the quotas of the next week, this week is almost over anyway

We added LTC as a reward payment option due to the recent growth in BTC transaction fees. So please provide your LTC wallet in your application if you want to be paid in LTC.

0 Hero & Legendary and 3 Full & Senior rank slots are still open for this week.

[SamReomo]

We highly value the opinions of reputable forum users and those who participated in previous rounds of Zenland beta tests.

I'm one of the participants of your previous rounds of Zenland beta test. If possible I would love to leave my feedback once again after testing the Zenland and it's current state and new features if any of those are added. I will try to explain in detail about my experience of using Zenland's escrow platform.

[Mia Chloe]

Telegram username;  @Mia_vic
BTC address;. bc1qxw775lqnzd90hta5mfyvhcsgajml2skuypu2aw

[paid2]

The first contract of the second week has been created on Arbitrum with paid2 and further instructions are sent in PM.  

https://arbiscan.io/address/0x5194D97A7D9bc5E093AE6b8189c52873eEdfcC9b

I had the opportunity to do the test as an agent for the https://arbiscan.io/address/0x5194D97A7D9bc5E093AE6b8189c52873eEdfcC9b contract.

Contractee wanted a text translated from English to French.
Contractor promised Contractee a professional quality translation.
Contractee was not satisfied with the quality of the work provided and suspected the use of online translation tools such as Google Translate.

Who are the two parties?
Well, I don't have much info.
However, Contractee has 10 reviews, all 5/5 and all positive comments. Contracotr has none, and no feedback at this time.

At first glance, I didn't really know what to make abut this dispute. The translation seemed not perfect but more or less OK.
On re-reading the chat again, I realised that Contractor received the text to be translated at 13:44. He sent the translated version at 13:45. This first point suggests the use of a translation tool.
Then, when I read the text, I realised that there were some mistakes in the translation and some grammatical errors.
Contractee was quite insistent at the beginning of the exchange, emphasising the fact that he required a professional quality translation. In my opinion, therefore, the contract has not been fulfilled, and I have agreed with Contractee.

So I sent a quick message in the chat, explaining my decision, and then sent the funds back to Contractee. I chose a 1% agent fee.
I did not propose a 50/50 arrangement as Contractor was clearly acting in bad faith. (If there had not only been ONE minute between receiving the text and sending the translation, I would have proposed a 50/50 or some other arrangement.)

Comments and observations:
-Perhaps a page/history for the agents, so that they can be trusted in disputes?
-The contract is no longer visible at all once the funds have been sent, perhaps it would be practical to keep them for a while in case of a problem with one of the parties?
-Perhaps you could incorporate the possibility for agents to invite a third party agent into the chat, in case there are any doubts? For example, if the agent in my test didn't speak French, he could ask another agent for help? How was supposed to do an non-FR speaking agent to deal with this case?

Another question: is there an appeal system for the agent's decisions?
Or is his decision final and absolute?

Otherwise, I love the principle of your service, guys! I heard about you on Dread, and I'm pleased to have had the opportunity to try out your services as an agent. I'd love to be an agent and handle real disputes in the future if I get the opportunity, it's very interesting and necessary in our world to have access to real escrow services.

We all know that in a free and decentralised market, trust and reputation are essential. Your service offers to add trust and build some reputation, it can become a MUST if you continue like this. You might want to consider listing yourself on tor.taxi for more visibility, as many people are looking for trusted escrows. Likewise, why not list yourself on kycnot.me?

Last question: I haven't found a way of adding 2FA, is this planned for the future?


I'll continue to browse your documentation and your site, and I'll add my comments/questions here if I have any.

Thanks @Zenland, that was really interesting!

[Danydee]

We had some issues with creating contracts with Danydee, nelson4lov, and DubemIfedigbo001 which are being sorted out in PM.

As requested I logged in using the new wallet address:

Code:

0x9be737009f492bacad923dbc370c05852f3f544d

Apologies for any inconvenience !

We added LTC as a reward payment option due to the recent growth in BTC transaction fees. So please provide your LTC wallet in your application if you want to be paid in LTC.

About this, can you please consider updating my payment address to Litecoin:

Code:

LZrWg62aJ8ZFgFL4nsr33G4g66e8msaq8r

Thank you so much !

[paid2]

We added LTC as a reward payment option due to the recent growth in BTC transaction fees. So please provide your LTC wallet in your application if you want to be paid in LTC.

About this, can you please consider updating my payment address to Litecoin:

Code:

LZrWg62aJ8ZFgFL4nsr33G4g66e8msaq8r

Same please, consider updating my payment address to LTC: edit:ltcaddresspaid2

Thank you!  

[Mr.suevie]

Telegram username: @Mr_suevie
Btc address:: bc1qtwnndmhnxsfk8asjwdwh6ln8jdkt6d5txdpe5r

[TryNinja]

TryNinja, please log in to Zenland App using a new Metamask address and post this address and your Telegram username in this thread. We will use the quotas of the next week, this week is almost over anyway

Thank you.

In this case, here is my original post:

Sounds fun.

1. Your Telegram username: @TryNinja
2. Wallet address for payment (BTC): 1EBP4gc9LHTPLxDmChb9YM6MBQY2d82cys

ETH address, if accepted: 0x708e0f39E61Ca441401CC8F1767E8c14c64917b6

[DubemIfedigbo001]

I logged in to Zenland using this wallet address  0xD2245bAbf3A48e2fB293C6b59923200b1ebFA439.  Waiting for the next step.

[Frankolala]

Telegram username: @Frankolala
Btc address:: bc1qymald8m889fjfmt0fyc406f3lxywuwhxu65lft

[nelson4lov]

Zenland Escrow Review

I was invited to try a Zenland escrow contract as an agent. The contract is 0x621340a3883bFF299E9AEb8c466598395408a53B on Bsc Chain (contract on bscscan: https://bscscan.com/address/0x621340a3883bFF299E9AEb8c466598395408a53B)


Contract terms: 
Exchange of 1 BUSD to 0.000022 BTC

However, there is a small mistake in the contract details, USDT is used instead of BUSD as quoted below:

This escrow contract initiates the exchange of 1 USDT for 0.000022 BTC. To fulfil this agreement, I, as the buyer, have locked in 1 BUSD

What happened:
The buyer was supposed to receive BTC from the seller. The seller sent an invalid TX hash since it doesn’t include the buyer's BTC address as a recipient. The buyer pointed this out to the seller who insisted it was a blockchain congestion problem which isn’t the case. The seller persuaded the buyer to coerce him/her to release the BUSD when the seller hadn’t fulfilled his end of the contract. 

Given the seller's dishonest behaviour and no further response from the seller, after I requested an appropriate transaction hash to be sent as proof, I was inclined to resolve the escrow contract in favour of the buyer and I did. Agent fee is currently set between 1-3 % for the agent for successful resolution as seen below: 





I took a 1% fee and returned the other 99% to the buyer.
 

Observations:

• Messages in chat by the agent can’t be edited once sent.
• The buyer protection time countdown is stuck at 1 days, 0 hours, 0 minutes in the UI even if it is enforced at the contract level.
• After the buyer protection time is elapsed, the seller can call

Code:

release()

and take 100% of the buyer's money and there is nothing the buyer can do about it. [/li]

• Contract code looks good and secure but lacks comments and some gas optimizations can be done to reduce the gas costs for users (buyer, seller, agent) eg: changing some require statements to custom error and other best practices like using constants instead of magic numbers.

[paid2]

Same please, consider updating my payment address to LTC: ltcaddresspaid2

Thank you! 

Payment received, thank you

[Zenland]

The next 4 contracts of the second week have been created on Binance Smart Chain and Polygon. nelson4lov, Danydee, DubemIfedigbo001, and TryNinja have been invited to them as escrow agents.

https://bscscan.com/address/0x621340a3883bff299e9aeb8c466598395408a53b
https://bscscan.com/address/0x54767383e44c00994d1e6d55311a0d51b4eedff6
https://polygonscan.com/address/0xfdc525526bfb59d08b2fe4456e203a76c01b673a
https://polygonscan.com/address/0xd949edc1db7a49f0bb494929051b046fd291c6c8

Since nelson4lov has already executed his arbitration, we're sending instructions on how to proceed further to the other 3 testers in PM.

All reviews that were posted so far are just great and full of wonderful ideas that we could potentially grow into whole new features. They all will be discussed with the team. Regarding the questions and concerns posted by the testers, we will soon make a post covering them all. Thank you.

[TryNinja]

The case so far:

The escrow was for the exchange of 1 USDC for 10.000.000 SHIB.

I check the chat logs, the Contractee has sent 1 USDC on the Polygon network to the escrow contract, which I confirmed onchain.

The Contractor then sent the Contractee 10.000.000 units of a token on the Polygon network of contract 0x61b66853bdefe04dc058774b808163d65a9c947d, which is an ERC20 with the symbol “SHIBA”.

The Contractee contested the idea by claiming that those are not the real SHIB tokens, but a random/fake token with the same name on the contract.

The Contractor isn't collaborative, the contract is disputed.


My decision:

I sent the following message on the chat so both parties understood my way of thinking:

As the dispute agent, it is my understanding that the “real” SHIB coin in question refers to Shiba Inu, a famous token on the Ethereum network of contract 0x95ad61b0a150d79219dcf64e1e6cc01f0b64c4ce (Coingecko page: https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/shiba-inu).

The token also has an official bridged version on the Polygon network of contract 0x6f8a06447Ff6FcF75d803135a7de15CE88C1d4ec

What the Contractor sent was a token deployed just 1 hour before the escrow transaction, with no transaction history or apparent real value.

For that I’m siding with the Contractee for 100% minus the agent’s fee of 1%.

Suggestion:

Write the contract address and network of the token in question on the “Contract details” field so there is no confusion on what both parties are agreeing to.

Then I split the money, which finished the case: 99% to the Contractee (buyer), 0% to the Contractor (seller), 1% to the Agent.


Thoughts:

• The link (coingecko page) on my message sent on the chat was broken. Screenshot:
  
  
  

• On the contract main details card, the Contractee (buyer) comes first and the Contractor (seller) comes second. When splitting the money, it's the opposite: the Contractor (Seller’s Percentage) comes first and the Contractee (Buyer’s Percentage) comes second. This change of orders and wording can be confusing, which is bad specially when you’re splitting the money, a sensitive action that can cause money losses.
  
  For a moment, I almost did the opposite of what I wanted and sent 99% to the Contractee (buyer) which was trying to scam the Contractor (seller). This would be a disastrous outcome.
  
  
  
  
  Suggestion: Be more consistent with the wording for both parties. I personally still don't like the words Contractee and Contractor as a non-native english speaker. Multiple times I caught myself having to think more than I should to avoid mistaking who's who. "Contractee = buyer = sent the USDC" and "Contractor = seller = sent the fake SHIBA".
  
  I would prefer if the contractee/contractor names would be ditched and the contract creator could choose if he's the buyer or seller.
  

• Hovering the “Seller’s percentage”, “Buyer’s Percentage” or "Agent’s Percentage” information icon on the Splitting Money card shows up a tooltip that blocks the input until the mouse leaves the area. It took me a couple seconds to understand why I couldn’t write on the input.
  
• The reputation page was down at the time of my review. Error “Cannot read properties of null (reading 'toLowerCase')” on line 74 of Profile.tsx: params.id.toLowerCase() !== auth.whoAmI.nickname.toLowerCase())
  
• After the dispute was concluded, I was sent directly to the Contracts page and an error message popped up with the text “Not found”. It would be better to show the final outcome and the previously disputed contracts on my list.
  

[nelson4lov]

Since nelson4lov has already executed his arbitration, we're sending instructions on how to proceed further to the other 3 testers in PM.

I want to confirm that I have received payment. Thank you to the Zenland team for the opportunity to review the agent side of their decentralized escrow service.

[DubemIfedigbo001]

my feedback is this

I was invited as an agent in a contract consisting of a buyer who purchased an iPhone 7 128GB, the buyer received the item and observed that the phone is locked with a message which states that the phone has been reported as stolen. The seller keeps claiming that the damages was done during shipment of the phone, I saw from the seller's argument that the damage on the phone cannot be from the shipment, that in fact the phone seems to be stolen. The buyer couldn't react to that accusation, but instead pressured the seller to release his money as the goods was in a good condition when he sent it. The seller opted to involve an agent and leave the phone in the police station

My Judgement
From the drama and the failure of the seller to react to the allegation that the phone was actually stolen and not a packaging damage was evident that the seller was the defaulter here. The seller was only interested in his money being released at the expense of his reputation being tarnished with the allegation of theft, and having considered carefully the evidence of the buyer below, and asking the seller for his own evidence of acquiring the device legally, which he never replied to.



Also checking their reputation and reviews, I also observed that the seller has neither a good review nor reputation, while the buyer has over 7 reviews with excellent reputation..
I finally resolved the dispute in favour of the buyer, I sent 99% of the funds back to the buyer and 1% to agent.

Observatons
I saw that there is a documentation that helps even new and old users get more acquainted with the way Zenland operates and I must say its a very good feature.

I also observed the presence information and interaction channels like telegram and discord.

I observed the seperate buttons loading the contract and chats. It made the presentation cleaner and gives a very good user experience for the agent.

The contract creation date and the Due date had an excess of 4 days as against the 30 days buyer protection time, it was 34 days actually

I also saw these feedbacks when I sent funds to specific addresses, both "success" and "not found". please fix the bug


Recommendations

• use a conventional title for the disputed parties like buyer/seller and not contractor/contractee
• make provision for being precise when asking any party a question, like a button where you can choose to either ask the buyer or the seller specific questions in the chat and the indications of who the question is meant for.
• There should be extra layers of security like 2FA, Google auth etc because a compromised Zenland account might possibly mean a compromised metamask wallet since it is connected
• there should be a history of the dispute an agent settled and not disputes vanishing never to be found again

Conclusion
This platform is really promising, Thank you very much for the opportunity given to me to test it out, I wish Zenland the best in becoming a top escrowed tool, and I would love to be one of the actual agents in the near future