Borderless' road to main adoption

I would like to know what is the team and community opinions about the following two properties of Borderless which may or may not stop it from being adopted. If Borderless ever comes to life I would want it to go beyond Bisq’s customer base and take market share from some of the hybrid and centralized crypto exchanges.

  1. To my knowledge Borderless requires that taker and maker to start the transaction manually. While this is normal for takers, it is not normal for makers to have to be online in order to finish the trade. Do you think this will be an impediment? Is there a long term solution maybe using Timble?
  2. Collateral. Having to post collateral in NRG may stop many traders from using Borderless. What is your opinion?
1 Like

This is also my question too. If the collateral is lower than the actual price of BTC that you sell, the seller can easily lost money when setting NRG too low and the buyer simply doesn’t send the ETH to that seller after the seller sent BTC to them, the buyer will get the BTC and just pay the smaller amount of NRG collateral and vice versa. What is the opinion of the team on this?

  1. You are correct, both the maker and taker must submit their collateral and their underlying assets. Borderless will enable you to “Auto-Settle” if you should choose to do so.

  2. This is a question of user experience and education. Right now some of the most sophisticated movements of assets require collateral in order to do so, but this requires extensive third parties to manage - whereas in Borderless this is seem-less. That being said, there will definitely be incentives for organizations to be built around the loaning of NRG for collateralizing on Borderless.


When an a taker is about to fulfill a maker order (when they’re about to send in their collateral), they can observe the details of the trade and evaluate whether the amount of collateral is enough for them to take the trade.


Thanks for answering.

Is it technically possible to implement trades between member chain without collateral even if it is not possible in the current implementation of Borderless? Or this is technically infeasible without sacrificing trust?

1 Like

There has to be some mechanism to hold both parties liable for executing their trade. By requiring collateral, this inherently creates a situation incentivizing the completion of the trade.

1 Like

Atomic swaps are not possible?

Atomic swaps (at least as they currently exist) do not allow for partial order fulfillment and are limited in the chains that support them.

An exchange relying on atomic swaps would be severely limited in utility.

1 Like