No, my point was that the user cannot control the others and you giving the first person the second’s amount. My example showed how person 1 made a mistake and person 2 missed out entirely and person 2 did everything correctly.
And the reason the first person delayed could be as simple as they lost their private key, they had an accident after sending the eth, or a number of other reasons. And it was your end that gave the second person’s amount to the first.
What you described first up meant that people could lose out to scammers, foreseeable mistakes, etc and it is your end that gave the wrong person the amount.
That is why you MUST use the other method suggested later. Your first method is faulty in some circumstances and prone to scamming or foreseeable errors making it credit the wrong person. And to use that first method is irresponsible I am sorry to say. Especially when the method to encode the address in the eth transaction is available.