Klerosboard

Based on the provided screenshot, the contract address 'eip155:56:0x8AC76a51cc950d9822D68b83fE1Ad97B32Cd580d' is visible in the wallet pop-up, which also shows the associated token (USDC) on the Binance Smart Chain (indicated by 'BSC'). Additionally, the domain name 'bridge.connext.network' appears in the address bar. The submission appears to comply with the acceptance policy as it demonstrates the contract address in a dApp environment on the specified domain, and as there are no reported duplicates or any major issues identified. It would be advised to verify that the UI on the domain remains unchanged and the domain remains functional, as noted in the guidelines. Following the Kleros guidelines, if all the provided evidence is accurate and no discrepancies are found upon further examination, the submission could be accepted into the registry. However, my statement should not be interpreted as final or binding, and I invite others to provide their commentary on this case for a comprehensive evaluation. ACCEPT

Submitted by: 0xA5C9...0caF in November 20 2023, 09:31

Challenge Justification

To the Honorable Jurors of the Kleros Platform, I am submitting challenges to recent proposals within the Kleros Curate registry, specifically regarding the listings of token addresses with domains related to both decentralized exchanges (DEXs) and bridges. These challenges are in line with the arguments presented in my earlier challenge, notably detailed in Case Number 160 (https://court.kleros.io/cases/160). The enclosed statements extend the rationale of previous submissions, questioning the compliance of these listings with the registry's criteria for intentional and direct use from the associated domains. I respectfully request your thorough consideration of these matters and recommend a verdict of "No, do not add it" for each submission, to maintain the integrity and purpose of the registry. With high regards, Kleric

Submitted by: 0xF113...B21C in November 21 2023, 11:30

✅ Valid Submission

This submission is in line with the policy. When you approve a token in the pop-up wallet, you're actually interacting with the token contract. You're giving permission to take a certain amount of that token from your account. The pop-up wallet shows the full or short version of the contract address. Precedent: In the past, many similar submissions have been accepted into this registry. Even when one was challenged, the jurors voted to accept it. So, because you're interacting with a public website and the pop-up wallet shows the token's contract address, this submission must be accepted. It follows the rules of the policy document. The vote must be: Yes, Add It! ✅ Thanks!

Submitted by: 0xb38e...7e0E in November 21 2023, 17:00

Urgent Appeal to Jurors: Please Vote 'No, Don't Add It'

The requester's side seems to overlook a critical aspect of Kleros and the ERC 1497: Evidence Standard, which underpins this arbitration. Jurors are required to base their decisions on the context provided by the meta evidence ipfs.kleros.io/ipfs/QmPRDv7cT4ReyQPLFH7SXa8shyDajMqr34pDtbGJxaZDQk This meta evidence distinctly characterizes the curated list as "A list of contract addresses and the domain names they are meant to be used from." However, upon inquiry, both domain owners and contract creators have disavowed that this description is applicable to their domain/contract pairs (example screenshot attached). Further, it's important to note that the policy file of this registry is titled as "guidelines," not absolute rules. This suggests a framework for reasoned interpretation rather than a rigid set of conditions. The absence of explicit prohibition does not automatically validate a submission. It must be considered within the broader scope of the registry's description, as outlined in the meta evidence.

Submitted by: 0xF113...B21C in November 29 2023, 06:54

Example screenshot

Submitted by: 0xF113...B21C in November 29 2023, 06:56

YES

Dear jurors, The submission indeed follows the current policy, it shows the correct contract, domain, and a screenshot of interaction as a proof. The challenger, kleric, bulk challenged 20+ cases (case160-181) and appeals these cases relentlessly despite the curate subcourt has judged YES ADD IT for ALL related cases for ALL rounds. So far, the result has been 480+ YES 4 REFUSE And 1 NO (a single vote) With an overwhelming 99% YES rate according to the community made dashboard shown below. Link: https://dune.com/kouei/case-160-181 I express my gratitude to the jurors for their invaluable time, hoping that justice prevails for all the cases in question.

Submitted by: 0x3A42...8d39 in November 29 2023, 12:17

Urgent Appeal to Jurors: Please Vote 'No, Don't Add It'

bridge.connext.network is not affiliated with USDT and does not want to be connect to it in a list that is OFFICIALLY described as: "A list of contract addresses and the domain names they are meant to be used from ." Why is the submitter pushing so hard to get this pair listed??

Submitted by: 0xF113...B21C in November 29 2023, 14:08

Jurors must ACCEPT this entry

This is a fully decentralized registry and all opinions are equal by default and must be considered by their own merits. But as one of the co-creators of this registry, I find it necessary to upload a document an opinion on why this entry MUST BE ACCEPTED by the jurors. The document includes refutal of these three main challenge arguments: 1. "Meant to be used from” argument 2. "Redundant/Useless data" argument 3. "Spirit of the registry" argument May jurors old and new vote wisely to uphold the policy of this registry.

Submitted by: 0xf313...c2F6 in December 17 2023, 04:52