In my opinion the choice of paying fees or not for Paypal is not a bad one. If someone don't know the seller or whoevery, fees and with this the protection is very useful, but my mainproblem for this is that the seller have to pay them. Instead they should be charged from the buyer. Well at least in this special case.
Why not split the fee? From a neutral point of view, both the buyer and the seller cannot be trusted. The seller is exposed to the risk of chargeback and unreasonable refunds, and the buyer is risking that the seller doesn't ship the product or a faulty one.
With Utrust both are at least partially solved: the money cannot be charged back and the money is held in escrow, giving the buyer time to inspect the products.
Of course, splitting would also be an option. Well but even with escrow you have the same situation like in Paypal. You can't charge back and everything is fine. The seller for example can also provide sending documents, also the buyer can give informations about a missing or demaged product, if something is wrong. Same goes for UTrust here where you need to find a solution in "escalated" situation.
I think UTrust would be a great alternative with lower fees for especially merchants, but that's for example most interesting if you use UTrust tokens with no fee on the platform.
