The visual proof provided shows the domain 'metavault.trade' with a user interface for swapping tokens. The address bar displays the subdomain and the specific page where the contract interaction is purported to occur. Additionally, the MetaMask wallet popup displays an abbreviated contract address that begins with '0xd500...', supposedly correlating with the full contract address submitted: 'eip155:137:0x0d500B1d8E8eF31E21C99d1Db9A6444d3ADf1270'. No redaction of sensitive information such as balances or token holdings appears necessary in this context, and the screenshot seems to align with the submission requirements outlined in the registry guidelines. It's worth noting, however, that there was no externally verifiable information provided above from Perplexity.ai or other sources regarding the authenticity or safety of this domain or the contract address, which could be relevant for a comprehensive evaluation against potential risks such as security or privacy breaches. Despite the lack of external verification, based on the provided screenshot, which is consistent with the registry guidelines, and given that there are no pre-existing entries for this particular contract address and domain name pair, I find that the submission adheres to the guidelines set forth for the Kleros "Contract Domain Name" registry. Therefore, based on the information provided and within the scope of the guidelines, the decision is to 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!

This submission is fine according to the current policy, which doesn't ban token contracts. If we don't want to accept token contracts, we need to change the rules. However, any valid token contract that was submitted before any future rule change must be accepted. It seems like the person who challenged this submission is upset because they were challenged in case 159 (https://curate.kleros.io/tcr/100/0x957A53A994860BE4750810131d9c876b2f52d6E1/0xb199583c22455c6e38eeb2f0ef671d4f6231be5950950e4a4da34704c0f41afd). They seem to be taking out their frustration by challenging about 20 valid submission. They're challenging based on what they think the rules should be, not what they actually are. The vote must be: Yes, Add It! ✅ Thanks! Note to the challenger: It's important to stay calm and collected, even when things don't go our way. It's not helpful to react in extremes when we're upset. Let's focus on constructive actions that can help improve the system for everyone! Cheers! 😉

According to the CDN policy and the team's earlier explanation in the telegram (see the attachment), my submission was clearly legitimate. I think the challenger is playing on words, It is clear that he/she have a unique understanding of "intent". Common sense says wrap contract's one of the biggest uses is warpping tokens in dexs :)

In this case, the user interacts with this front-end and domain name to wrap tokens, which is very common behavior to directly use wrap contracts to wrap tokens in defi/nftfi/dex categories frontends and domains and fully compliant with the policy "It is the intent of the official team behind the frontend and domain name to make this contract interactable through this domain (i.e. not due to an exploit or bug)." So challenger's allegation of "merely to list platforms where the token is operational" is inaccurate. Challenger's obsession with token contract's define seems to forget the fact that the user is actually wrapping tokens with the contract and the process is clearly shown in the metamask in the screenshot. You can see similar submissions by different submitters being accepted, the earliest was a few months ago and there are no changes in the lasted policy regarding this. By the way the attachment to the previous article can be searched in the official telegram of Kleros. Thanks!

This submission is indeed valid. We’ve seen many token contracts submitted and accepted into this registry without any issues. This case is similar to others (cases #160 thru #181) where the individual challenged the inclusion of token contracts in the registry. However, in those cases, *not a single vote* was for 'No, Don't Add It'. Furthermore, there have been instances where the jurors voted in favor of accepting token contracts, which were then added to the registry. Also, please see the following video for case #160 as it is relevant to this case: https://ipfs.kleros.io//ipfs/QmWtRZhHgQF8PzEcFzRjaLvdLFF6oh17CQmp5utXVu9fF8/yesaddit.webm The domain owners obviously want the the token contract to be interacted with on this domain. Otherwise it would be impossible to actually swap/wrap the token. 🤣 The vote must be: Yes, Add It! ✅ Thanks!

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.

Policy is included in meta evidence and It is also shown on the front-end as clearly listing criteria (both side of the requester and challenger, via the attachment). According to the visual proof, the requester didn't violate anything. Wraping is a foundational feature of the dex category that includes this entry. The visual proof proves what they're doing. Many dex have unique UI on wrapping. FYI, based on the rhetoric I could also accuse the challenger of clearly contradicting the intentions of the creator of this program.

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.