she has no incentive to release funds to bob Then in case case, bob having an issue with the transaction (alice refuses to pay) can issue a escrow_dispute_operation leaving the matter to amazon to solve (eg: pay bob).
And he has to fit within escrow_expiration, because if he does not, alice could snatch back the payment before he does No if there's a dispute, expiration no longer counts and the agent has infinite time to figure it out. If both parties can't come to an agreement, the funds will stay locked forever.
But that's the whole point -
alicedid not refuse to pay. **From her perspective she already paid. ** Escrow transfer should default to "all is ok" when it is not disputed. Currently natural behavior when client is just shopping forces shop to open dispute in each case, adds unnecessary work to agent, which increases fees, and can also desensitize agent leading to wrong handling of actual disputed cases.oh incentive in thaaat sense, sorry I ment I thought incentive like morals as in "nothing makes me want to pay".
Yeah I agree with you and @gtg it's not great :/
I agree with @miosha that the current flow is ridiculous for retail-style purchases.
After approval, the buyer has no incentive to send a release tx. The seller can’t self-release before escrow_expiration, so in practice they either wait for expiry (and then self-release) or open a dispute just to get paid, which burdens the agent even when nothing is wrong.
For ordinary purchases, the expected default should be: if nobody disputes within the inspection window, the funds settle to the seller automatically. An opt-in "auto-release to seller at escrow_expiration if undisputed" would match user expectations while preserving the current dispute protections.