Spotted a serious flaw in some payment mechanisms 👀
Here's the thing—if an escrow service is releasing funds to the seller before the buyer confirms receipt, that's a major red flag. How does that even make sense from a transaction security standpoint?
This kind of process gap leaves the buyer completely exposed. You're essentially transferring risk to the wrong party. We've seen this play out across different asset movements, whether it's $ZEC or $LUNC transfers—the order of operations matters.
Tight escrow protocols should lock payments until both sides validate completion. Anything less is just asking for disputes or worse.
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
13 Likes
Reward
13
7
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
AlwaysAnon
· 01-09 20:08
Deposit first and then confirm? Only a fool would believe this trick.
View OriginalReply0
GhostAddressMiner
· 01-09 20:06
Wow, this process design is really clever. First, send the money to the seller, then wait for the buyer to confirm... I just want to know which addresses are behind this manipulation. I need to check the on-chain footprints.
View OriginalReply0
ParanoiaKing
· 01-09 20:03
Isn't this a typical black-box operation? The buyer has become the scapegoat.
View OriginalReply0
CrashHotline
· 01-09 20:00
This is outrageous, putting money in the seller's hands first? Won't the buyer be completely scammed?
View OriginalReply0
RugResistant
· 01-09 20:00
This escrow logic is really outrageous. The seller receives the funds first, and the buyer hasn't received the goods yet? Isn't this just opening a backdoor for scammers?
View OriginalReply0
GateUser-addcaaf7
· 01-09 19:56
This escrow design is really outrageous; the buyer ends up being the big loser.
View OriginalReply0
LiquidatedDreams
· 01-09 19:52
This escrow logic is really outrageous. The seller receives the money first, and the buyer hasn't confirmed yet? Who designed this messed-up process...
Spotted a serious flaw in some payment mechanisms 👀
Here's the thing—if an escrow service is releasing funds to the seller before the buyer confirms receipt, that's a major red flag. How does that even make sense from a transaction security standpoint?
This kind of process gap leaves the buyer completely exposed. You're essentially transferring risk to the wrong party. We've seen this play out across different asset movements, whether it's $ZEC or $LUNC transfers—the order of operations matters.
Tight escrow protocols should lock payments until both sides validate completion. Anything less is just asking for disputes or worse.