Reduce minimum required security deposit to 0.0003 BTC

[MwithM]

The current minimum required security deposit is currently 0.001 BTC. This proposal seeks to reduce it to 0.0003 BTC.

At current BTC price (94.000 USD/BTC) the minimum security deposit will be around 28 USD. This is the security deposit that will be in use if 15% of trade amount were lower than 0.0003 BTC (trades under 0.002BTC).
Read the previous proposal with past discussion on this issue. In my opinion only BTC price has changed since then, and all reasons are still valid.

[HenrikJannsen]

Not sure if the value is verified by the peer. It has not been in the past, but not sure if that has changed. If so, the change comes with more effort to support backward compatibility.

[solomon1923]

This would affect people trading 0.0066 BTC or below on Bisq 1.

I wonder if we would it would be better to push traders of these small amounts to use Bisq Easy by not decreasing the required security deposit amount.

A security deposit of 0.0003 BTC seems on the small side for compensation when a buyer sends a payment with 'bitcoin; as a reference for example, or a scam attempt. Especially considering the 'penalty' would not be the full amount as 5% of the trade amount will still be given to the 'losing' party in mediation.

As Bisq 2 is now active I think having a larger differentiation between Bisq 1 and Bisq Easy is not a bad thing. Keeping the min required at it's current levels could be one of the factors that help traders choose what is a more suitable protocol for them to use.

Thinking of how Bisq 1 is viewed by users in the future I do not think it is a bad thing for it to be correctly perceived as more secure due to requiring a larger security deposit, and for trades on Bisq 1 to end up being mainly 0.01 BTC and over with smaller trades taking place on Bisq Easy.

[MwithM]

This would affect people trading 0.0066 BTC or below on Bisq 1.
A 0.0066 btc trade would have a minimum security deposit of 15%, 0.00099 BTC, which is higher than 0.0003 BTC.

I think that if Bisq multisig has worked correctly in the past with min security deposits of 30-50 USD, there is no reason to change that. Bisq Easy will be used a lot when mining fees surge, or for those payment methods that require more back and forth messaging.

Thinking of how Bisq 1 is viewed by users in the future I do not think it is a bad thing for it to be correctly perceived as more secure due to requiring a larger security deposit, and for trades on Bisq 1 to end up being mainly 0.01 BTC and over with smaller trades taking place on Bisq Easy.

If trading 200USD in Bisq multisig makes sense as mining fees are low enough, I see no reason to oblige traders to set up a 50% security deposit.

[MwithM]

I don't know what's the expected life for Bisq multisig at Bisq 1, but if it's short and causes a lot of work maybe no change is necessary. But my impression is that Bisq 1 will be used for at least 6 months more, so unless it's such a critical change (e.g. a hardfork is needed) this change may be worth.
If it's not easy to adjust this parameter at Bisq 2 multisig, I think that min security deposit should be completely removed and leave a trade amount % min security deposit which should work independently of BTC price.