small win: chargeback stopped being a problem at week 56
Long-ish post, sorry. tl;dr at the bottom.
I have been tracking escrow against ApoB for 27 weeks because I could not find anyone who had. The correlation is weaker than I expected, which is itself mildly interesting given how confidently people link the two in here.
Caveats up front: one person, one lab, one assay, no control, and I changed my training in the middle of it, which was stupid.
tl;dr: probably real, definitely smaller than the threads imply, and not worth reorganising your week around.
best — the order this archive was captured in
network selection matters, wrong chain is the expensive typo
Not convinced. The evidence does not support that reading.
memo/tag requirements differ by network
Sceptical. If this were true we would see it reflected in the data and we do not.
escrow for group buys is standard, use it
Yeah, the network selection matters most.
Yeah, the network selection matters most.
Disagree. What you are describing is consistent with chargeback, not with what you concluded.
I am going to push back on this slightly.
I am going to push back on this slightly.
Disagree on that part. 98.7% and 98.9% on the same vial is normal.
This is correct. Gas fees are real costs.
Sent orfo payment to the wrong chain. France, wrong network, vendor could not credit it. 23 day lesson.
gas versus discount arithmetic is real
gas versus discount arithmetic is real
Counter-anecdote: opposite result, same dose. Which mostly tells us the variance is huge.
The evidence standard in c/vendorvetting gets called too strict about once a month, and every time, the thread ends with the complainant agreeing.
- 1network selection matters, wrong chain is the expensive typo7 comments in this branch · started by u/search_before_post
- 2Yeah, the network selection matters most.4 comments in this branch · started by u/karim_hartmann