Console Trade - the wrong interpretation of "easy to trade" (bonus: Warframe example)

I've been reading the trade manifesto, and the reason why the trade is so bad is clearer now. TLDR: to make items valuable and exciting, trade is essential for ARPG, though easy trade makes progression feeling less earned and exciting, thus trade shouldn't be easy, i.e. it's now "easy to find, hard to conduct" on PC and "hard to find, easy to conduct" on consoles.

"

BTW, it reminds me Warframe's approach - no trade boards or sites, just spamming the chat, and daily number of trades is limited by your level. And there was a trade commission charged. On the other hand, they let trade game items for store points. And it was inconvenient, but felt fair. Yes, it was a play-to-win in a sense, but the inconvenience prevented it from ruining the game. On the other hand, people were able to purchase stash space just by playing. And again, it felt fair. And I strongly suspect it was really good for the sales.

What I don't understand - it's why GGG interprets "hard" as UI inconvenience instead of a game mechanic limitation. For example, Warframe's limit of daily trades is crude approach, but already better. Trade commission - even better.

I'd like to see is a trade board (essential functionality to not interrupt sessions with portal limitations), with auto-confirm if the offer matches asking (to stop price fixing abuse), with trade site (if UI in game is too hard on consoles for this) to custom-filter by affixes. And the easyness should be removed by a) trade commission charged b) number of trades limited by exp earned recently c) time delay for receiving the purchased item (that can be cut by paying an additional fee).

I mean, there are multiple ways to solve this, but the main promise stays - limit on easiness to trade should not be defined by UI inconvenience, but rather should be a game mechanic.
(Edit: grammar)