[Discussion] can we stop arguing about USDC until somebody posts a number
can we stop arguing about USDC until somebody posts a number, and I want the answer with the reasoning attached rather than just the conclusion. Confirmation took forty minutes on a busy evening and I had already written half an angry message. Deleted it. Rate quotes expire because the underlying rate moves. A short…
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
the supplier cannot reverse it and neither can you
reverse_image_ron is right about confirmations. "Sent" is not a status.
a payment sent on the wrong network is usually gone
Small fix — that is the network fee, not a supplier charge. The distinction matters for the complaint you are making.
Which networks did they list as accepted?
match the address character by character, or paste and verify
The sequence that makes this boring, which is the goal.
Ask which networks are accepted before you order. Pick the one with a sensible fee at that hour. Paste the address rather than typing it and verify the first and last several characters. Check whether the chain requires a memo. Send a test amount if the total is large. Wait for confirmations before treating anything as done. Save the transaction hash with the order reference.
Seven steps, most of them seconds long, and between them they eliminate every failure mode that gets posted on this board.
Did you send a test amount first?
Agreed that quote expiry is ordinary. Rates move and a time-limited quote is not a pressure tactic on its own.
The transaction hash is the canonical receipt: it is public, verifiable by either party, and it is what a support query should quote.
Nearly sent on the wrong network. The token symbol was identical and the address format was the only clue.