[Meta] the chargeback rule is doing its job and people should stop complaining
the chargeback rule is doing its job and people should stop complaining. Comments open, and the wording is genuinely up for discussion.
Sent to the right address on the wrong chain years ago. Nothing to be done. That is the lesson I paid for.
Got a quote with a fifteen-minute expiry and assumed it was a pressure tactic. It was just a held rate.
Pasted rather than typed the address, then checked the first and last six characters. Habit now.
Would rather be corrected in public than confident in private.
best — the order this archive was captured in
A test transaction costs one extra network fee and verifies the address, the network and the recipient’s crediting process before the main amount moves.
The transaction hash is the canonical receipt: it is public, verifiable by either party, and it is what a support query should quote.
A token symbol identifies an asset, not a network. The same symbol commonly exists on several chains with incompatible address formats, and sending across that boundary is generally unrecoverable.
A token symbol identifies an asset, not a network.
Adding the cheap insurance — test amount first on anything large.
the memo field matters on the chains that use one
[removed by moderator]
confirmations are the only status that means anything
Some chains require a memo or destination tag to route funds to the right account. Omitting it on those chains is one of the more common ways payments go astray.
Confirmation took forty minutes on a busy evening and I had already written half an angry message. Deleted it.
Small fix — that is the network fee, not a supplier charge. The distinction matters for the complaint you are making.
Correction: that address format is not the chain you named. Worth checking before anybody follows this.
Agreed. Network first, address second, amount third, and in that order every time.
keep the hash, it is the only receipt that exists
Not convinced. That fee is the network fee at that hour, and it has nothing to do with the supplier.
Correcting myself upthread: it was 17 confirmations, not the number I posted, and it settled fine.
escrow arrangements are rare and worth asking about
ask which networks they actually accept before you order
ask which networks they actually accept before you order
This is the check that prevents the only genuinely unrecoverable mistake in this thread.
Memo requirements are chain-specific. The chain you are describing does not use one.
Did you send a test amount first?
Cosigning on keeping the hash. It is the only receipt in existence and people screenshot their balance instead.
Network fees are set by chain congestion at the time of sending. They are paid to the network, not to the recipient, and they vary by hour as well as by chain.
the supplier cannot reverse it and neither can you
a payment sent on the wrong network is usually gone
Escrow is not standard in this space. Wanting it is reasonable; expecting it as default is not.
Yes — the same token symbol on two chains catches people constantly and it is unrecoverable.
send a test amount first if the total is large
fees vary by chain and by hour, not by supplier
How many confirmations does it show?
- 1keep the hash, it is the only receipt that exists8 comments in this branch · started by u/karl_fischer_kev
- 2A test transaction costs one extra network fee and verifies the address, the…7 comments in this branch · started by u/coa_janitor