I confirm that we agreed to re-use the address for @burningman3. The reason is that traders (buyers) who have disabled the DAO would reject sellers (at address verification) as the new address has to be added to the release (hardcoded) in case the users is not using the DAO (its only visible for DAO enabled nodes). Even after the next release it might take a bit until most users have updated to make sure that nearly no trades will fail because of that. A failed trade would result in lost trade fee for both buyer and seller.

So the process will be that we add @burningman3's new address to the list of hardcoded addresses for verification, then wait some time until most users have updated and then @burningman3 will make a DAO param change request with his new address. In the meantime he will get the private key of my current address so he can use that.

While we're on the topic of donation addresses, @burningman2, do you see any issue with separating into two addresses, one for arbitration payouts and one for trading fees paid in BTC? This would make accounting easier.

I think separating the addresses might not be that easy unless we hard code the addresses. I'm not keen on adding another DAO parameter due to the risks of issues with the DAO, even though I agree that it would be a reasonable separation. In a way it will be quite separated for a while at least with the fees going to the victims of the theft, but that's not a great solution since it depends on the filter.

I've updated the title to follow common convention. /cc bisq-network/roles#80.

Bonded role proposal.
Tx ID: 973f38f8fb7869d6d54783a5568937a79df5addaab0c0b5d1a2f8e4daab1812e

Closing as approved in Cycle 13 DAO voting; @burningman3 has been assigned to own bisq-network/roles#80 accordingly.