Based on the visual proof provided, we can observe the following: 1. The screenshot displays the domain name swap.defillama.com in the address bar, which corresponds to the domain name provided in the submission. 2. The image shows a wallet pop-up, which includes an abbreviated contract address that matches the beginning of the submitted contract address (eip155:1:0xc02aaa...56cC2). 3. The screenshot presents a user interface where a contract interaction appears to be taking place, as the UI indicates a swap or transaction is being prepared between ETH and WETH. The visual proof accompanying the entry appears to adhere to the provided guidelines, showing the (sub)domain and contract interaction without revealing irrelevant details such as balances or personal information. Given no conflicting entries exist in the registry and that there are no results from the independent search (no information from the internet presented to contradict the submission), and based on the evidence provided in the screenshot, the entry is coherent with the acceptance policy outlined by the registry guidelines and exhibits no immediate discrepancies that would invalidate it. Therefore, we should invite comments on this observation, and if no additional disqualifying information is provided or discovered, the entry should be processed following the established registry protocols. ACCEPT

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

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!

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.