diff options
| author | Christian Grothoff <christian@grothoff.org> | 2024-09-05 12:09:43 +0200 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Christian Grothoff <christian@grothoff.org> | 2024-09-05 12:09:43 +0200 |
| commit | e11fc05b8715de3d90710f15dc21171142360bd4 (patch) | |
| tree | 5012acdbc510ca41b74aee538e9071d5d6dfb206 | |
| parent | 481943e780bc49e355570feb884f67c5efba0e3c (diff) | |
update flow documentation for process to reject initial deposit based on KYC/AML state (#9040)
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/flows/int-pay.tex | 23 |
1 files changed, 17 insertions, 6 deletions
diff --git a/doc/flows/int-pay.tex b/doc/flows/int-pay.tex index 2968c4c2e..004998b64 100644 --- a/doc/flows/int-pay.tex +++ b/doc/flows/int-pay.tex @@ -30,12 +30,19 @@ \begin{callself}{wallet}{Review offer}{} \end{callself} \mess[0]{wallet}{Pay {(Coins)}}{merchant} + \prelevel \mess[0]{merchant}{Deposit {(Coins)}}{exchange} + \begin{sdblock}{KYC/AML required?}{} + \begin{callself}{exchange}{Figures~\ref{fig:proc:kyc}, \ref{fig:proc:aml}}{} + \end{callself} + \end{sdblock} \begin{sdblock}{Acceptable account?}{} \mess[0]{exchange}{{Refuse deposit}}{merchant} - \mess[0]{merchant}{{Refund purchase}}{wallet} + \prelevel + \mess[0]{merchant}{{Fail purchase}}{wallet} \end{sdblock} \mess[0]{exchange}{{Confirm deposit}}{merchant} + \prelevel \mess[0]{merchant}{Fulfill order}{wallet} \begin{callself}{exchange}{Aggregate transactions}{} \end{callself} @@ -53,8 +60,12 @@ \end{figure} {\bf Internal note:} The exchange refusing a deposit immediately based on -unaccaptable merchant accounts may not be fully implemented (this is a very -recent feature, after all); especially the merchant then automatically -refunding the purchase to the customer is certainly missing. However, -the entire situation only arises when a merchant is incorrectly configured -and in violation of the terms of service. +unaccaptable merchant accounts can depend both on the target account +(e.g. wire method not supported) or on the legitimization state of the +merchant's target account (including lack of KYC authorization wire +transfer, failure to accept terms of service, failure to provide KYC +data, or some kind of AML/KYC rule being violated). However, in general +the merchant backend will know if it has performed some mandatory sign-up +process and can thus avoid the entire situation by only offering exchanges +where the merchant is in good standing in its contracts. The central +bug for supporting this in the merchant is \#9052. |