First of all, don't take this the wrong way. I get why it's there and the intentions are good. However, I want to give some insight on how it affects me as someone who not only regularly buys, but in particular, frequently sells modules here on MG.

Ever since the buyer protection disclaimer was put up, I have noticed a significant increase in buyers refusing to buy any of my modules unless I agree to them using Paypal's purchase protection. The fees are for the buyer, that's not the issue. The issue lies in the uncertainties for the seller that apply when agreeing to Paypal's purchase protection terms. The worst part is that Paypal's purchase protection was designed for brand new retail products, with return windows and factory warranties. Not for used products on marketplace websites.

The buyer gets at least 30 days, up to 180 days to file a claim against the seller for an item they bought. Yet as a seller, you get to deal with up to 180 days of uncertainty whenever you sell a module using purchase protection. None of this is reflected in the disclaimer.

In case of a claim filed by the buyer, the seller is required to:

• Prove that the module was exactly according to the description, fully functional and properly shipped at the time of sale.
• Prove that the internal components were intact prior to shipping it (impossible without disassembly).
• Defend themselves against any claims over cosmetic wear despite clearly disclosing this in the item description.

If the buyer is dishonest, they can:

• File a claim for any damage to the module that they caused themselves weeks or even months after the sale took place.
• Fake their own signature and claim to not have received their purchase.
• Regret their purchase and initiate a refund claim, regardless of them returning the module or not.

What this results in is a double standard where a seller's positive feedback is disregarded by the buyer, yet a buyer with zero feedfback expects the seller to trust them to not file a claim for whatever reason they may have. It creates an illusion of a safe transaction for both parties, which is far from reality.

I don't know of a direct solution to this problem, but I do think that it's important for users to know that purchase protection does not go both ways. Paypal very heavily favors the buyer in any transaction, which many users are unaware of. For the vast majority of claims made, the seller is out of luck and often even has to pay additional fees on top of losing their money, or they risk having their Paypal account terminated.

EDITED Apr 19th, 22:19

When we implemented the marketplace, we didn’t think it through very much - it was more of an impulse idea: “Let’s just add a used module marketplace.” That has now led to a large portion of the work revolving around it: chasing scammers, dealing with downvote drama.

I don't know of a direct solution to this problem, but I do think that it's important for users to know that purchase protection does not go both ways.

While this is a valid point in reality the vast majority of people who get scammed are buyers.

The disclaimer is meant to make it clear that transactions here are private deals between strangers. Whether you use PayPal or any other payment service is up to you - the point is simply to remind people that it’s a good idea to use a service that offers some form of insurance.

What this results in is a double standard where a seller's positive feedback is disregarded by the buyer, yet a buyer with zero feedfback expects the seller to trust them to not file a claim for whatever reason they may have.

The voting system, the other headache: it is far from perfect but better than nothing. And also as a seller you can look at the votes. Which, I am aware, give you another illusion of security :(

Maybe there are better solutions today, like embedding some type of escrow service. Will look into this and open to ideas.

Appreciate your input. I can imagine the marketplace being a headache to maintain when it comes to scammers, downvotes and whatnot. I believe we discussed this in a different topic a while ago also. I imagine it's important for a solution to not only be reliable but also ideally be low maintenance and not too difficult to implement. Would probably have to deal with some sort of legacy feedback system to preserve current user ratings however, which doesn't make it any easier.

Maybe there are better solutions today, like embedding some type of escrow service. Will look into this and open to ideas.

I know of a national (Dutch) marketplace platform that embeds an escrow service and unfortunately this seems to be even worse than using Paypal with purchase protection. You tend to run into the same issues but with higher fees and at a larger scale. What happens a lot is that buyers claim that they received a brick or some other worthless item instead of what they purchased. You can however often not dispute any claims as a seller because the escrow service practically always favors the buyer without any meaningful proof or any investigation. It's just easy money for the escrow service without providing any real value. The worst part is that the escrow service is entirely independent from the platform that hires them. They make their own decisions and disregard any proof provided by the marketplace staff that could prove a seller to be legitimate and honest.

There might be more reliable and better curated escrow services out there, but my assumption is that their fees might not make it worth using their services.

The voting system, the other headache: it is far from perfect but better than nothing. And also as a seller you can look at the votes. Which, I am aware, give you another illusion of security :(

I agree. It's a start and while it's not flawless, it's much better than not having any system in place.

What I think could be of value is to require both parties to identify whether they bought or sold an item from/to the other user, along with a textbox where they can write their experience. You could then further expand this by having a separate rating for purchases and sales for each user.

A way to verify a transaction would be ideal, but I think that this could take a significant amount of work and probably also be costly.

I'll explore some ideas today and post here if I feel like I have something worth considering.