pull down to refresh
Thank you for the feedback!
I considered this. It requires an additional roundtrip for the lightning invoice. I think that’s unnecessary. The biggest issue with exchanging credits for sats is the UX currently IMO. So I’m optimizing for that to get a market with some liquidity started. For now, if you don’t like the quote of the bot, don’t zap it.
The bot will publish the current exchange rate in its bio soon. This should help here.
It requires an additional roundtrip for the lightning invoice.
Just to make sure I got this right: right now, a transaction requires 1 comment from the CC seller and 2 from the bot. With my approach, it would be 2 from the bot and 2 from the seller. Is that right?
It’s a personal choice, but I’d rather not risk the CC seller not having enough CCs and having to generate another invoice and submit another order. Plus, I think it’s clearer for the CC seller, even if it means one extra comment.
Usage: @ccbank sell <invoice>
Exchange credits for sats. <invoice> must be a mainnet lightning invoice
with an amount that is valid for at least 24h.
Thinking about it again after reading the thread, maybe this isn’t as clear as it could be. It could even lead to a situation where the CC seller doesn’t have enough CCs, because you’re asking for an invoice for however many sats the seller wants to receive. After doing the math, they might not actually have enough CCs.
I think the best way would be:
@ek