The problem is that taking back the delegation takes one week, so 25 STEEM are already gone. Delegating to the other user means a second week gone. So 'refunding' means paying a second 50 STEEM.
We can refund the 5 STEEM in BuildTeam possesion once we are sure you know how to send a right memo from now on. But the other 45 STEEM are not ours to give.
ok. But I think your post should be prepared to handle such goof ups. If the memo format sent to the bot is not in the format suggested e.g. "<weeks <user" or whatever then no such request should be entertained. Slightest deviation from the standard format should be rejected asking to give request in proper format.
That is true. I am currently planning to implement it so that all memos with too many parameters get rejected.
fun fact: There exist a memo that cannot be detected, for example
4 weeksand if @weeks exists there is nothing we could do.OMG! Try registering all such accounts like @week, @weeks etc. yourself 😉
good plan, @week exists already @weeks not. there is probably @for @please @thanks @thank @you stuff like that. Once you allow natural language it becomes a mess.
OMG! Which would also cost us ~50 Steem? You seem to think this is Microsoft and not a small blockchain startup. Do you realize that with more than 22 000 users, this is our first serious complaint? That's not a product of bad service or a faulty user interface.
Well @bulleth, I didn't say you are a Microsoft but with a positive attitude and sweet relationships with all parties involved, you can surely become one some day.
It's obvious that such blunders are a rare occurrence, so instead of calculating the cost to you for a specific order you should calculate the average cost to you for 22,000 orders.
Unfortunately, you still don't believe that this was a result of a faulty user interface and that speaks volumes about how you look at this scenario. This means you would never like to work for improving this UI or the bot code further as you assume it to be perfect. Everything you say is quite okay with me except the last line which is difficult to digest. You want to put 100% of the blame on your users. You expect your users to be 100% perfect and proficient in following your every command precisely. Expecting such a response from a diverse user-base who speak different languages and come from different cultures is way too much. A rigid, zero tolerance means a user should be ready to lose all his funds which he / she put at risk when dealing with your bot. A sort of a gaming platform where stakes of winning are slightly higher. Is this how you want to project your service? If so, then it's all good!
BTW, would you like to tell us how many serious complaints did you receive so far? It would help us in calculating the average risk percentage per transaction.
Hi mate, I already did: 1. This is our first ever serious complaint. All users have to do is type the number of weeks they'd like in the memo - "4" in this case. We also have the web interface which takes care of all this for them. Either way, as Reggae already said, we are working on ways to improve the code so it recognizes bad memos and rejects them.
FYI I have resolved this issue with the customer and we will be making him whole again. We will not be doing this again going forward though, it is too open to abuse. What if @for was the customer's friends account? Matters like this are never as simple as they appear at first glance, there are four different parties in this transaction: @prime-cleric, @for, @minnowbooster and our liquidity provider.
Anyway, I'll leave you to it and thanks for the input and feedback.
Regards,
Bulleth.
Great to hear that the issue has been resolved! It'd had been better if the customer too had intimated it here.
Hope you don't encounter such problems again so that you need not do this again & again. Such problems should never become a routine anyway.
All the best!