Dispute #1201

Court Start Date Dispute Status Current Period Time remaining End Date
Technical 2022-05-26 06:09 Already Ruled Execution Already Ruled 2022-06-08 16:14
Arbitrable Creator

Unique Votes in all the rounds

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
2 0 0 0

Round 0

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
3 0 0 0
Round 0 Vote Casting Date
Yes 2022-06-01 17:17
Yes 2022-06-01 17:17
Yes 2022-06-04 03:53


Evidences provided by Vagarish

Evidence #1:

Response and Agreement to Challenger Proposal Thank you for clarifying your position and the reasonableness of your reply. We agree to your proposal and have made the deposit to your account here: https://etherscan.io/tx/0x64a76c07d4251f700a7f36f3841409163cd592b420f8c0d180def564d6d883fa To the jurors: I hope this has shown our good faith in making the claim and our acceptance that we missed including the secret key on the initial API. We hope for a positive ruling so we could put this behind us. Thank you again to the challenger and the jurors.

Evidence #2:

Settlement proposal / Remarks for jurors Responding to the claimant reply, the question here is not about 0.22 Ether that was used by the challenger to fund the Kleros dispute, but indeed about 0.721980130345875 Ether (hereafter ~ 0.722 ETH for simplicity) that were paid as a claim deposit. Submitting mere API key without API secret can not be considered "verifiable means" and as such, the claim must be rejected. Ownership on terra address prior to depeg can not guarantee the claimant did not sell UST at higher prices and thus, can't guarantee that the amount is not inflated. The correct way here would be to Reject this incomplete claim (ceding original ~ 0.722 ETH to the challenger), then use Unslashed "adjust claim amount" functionality to resubmit the same claim again (it is only possible to do once) with a lower amount (if the amount actually has to be the same, they can just lower it by 1 wei) and a more complete evidence. This would require another ~ 0.722 ETH deposit which would, upon "Accept" return back to the claimant. In total, the claimant stands to lose 0.722 ETH and the challenger stands to gain that amount (minus 0.22 that the challenger paid for the Kleros dispute). This would be the correct flow of such claim and this is why it's not about 0.22 ETH, but about ~ 0.722 ETH which the challenger was hunting for. In the previous settlement proposal the challenger asked to perform this transfer of ~ 0.722 ETH right away to save time. At this moment the challenger understands, that although this would save claimant's time, it's not 100% guaranteed that jurors will vote Reject and thus for the settlement it would be better to offer a lower amount so that the claimant stands to gain something from accepting the settlement. Therefore the new proposal is 75% of the amount in question. By accepting the settlement proposal, the claimant transfers 0.5415 Ether to the challenger and thus gains back 25% of the amount he would stand to lose if the claim goes by its normal flow, the challenger gets back 25% less than they expected, but is sure of the outcome and doesn't have to take a chance with the Kleros court. I hope the claimant sees it as a fair proposal this time and understands that by accepting it, they gain some money back, compared with what they would normally stand to lose for their mistake. To the jurors: a transfer of an amount or 0.5415 Ether to the address 0x2343E74A17a70503e1c62D808c8c2ABFaC926Ace would mean a withdrawal of motion to Reject based on initial evidence and a green light to rule based on the complete updated evidence.

Evidence #3:

Proposal to Approve Claim Policy document completely states regarding coverage: "Or any UST or aUST assets, or any debt/borrowing positions, held on a centralized, decentralized exchange, a Terra wallet or any other blockchain wallet, of which ownership prior to the policy period can be proven through deposits, message signing, trading activity, any onchain transactions or other verifiable means." Even with just the Terra Wallet, ownership of the UST/aUST assets prior to the policy period can be seen. With the addition of the Secret Key on the Binance API, it is also clear actual loss was suffered, and that no sale was even done prior to the claim. The accounting spreadsheet merely recounts the onchain history of the wallet which only simply had aUST and UST transactions and makes it easier to read. Therefore, with the evidence provided: * It is clear the ownership of the assets prior to the policy period has been established. Onchain data on the terrawallet, message signing, as well as binance apis proved this history * It has satisfied the requirements set forth to consider the loss, as evidenced by the transaction data in Binance: ● the loss is related to UST-US dollar peg, UST trading below $0.87 on CMC, Coingecko or other reputable sources; and ● the loss on UST-US dollar peg results in a TWAP, based on market data extracted from reputable sources, below $0.87 in a two-week span at least; and ● the loss occurred during the policy period. * Such loss is even greater than the claimed amount. * Claimant willing to compensate challenger a fair value for challenging the claim in good faith.

Evidence #4:

Reply to Settlement Proposal by 0x2343e74a17a70503e1c62d808c8c2abfac926ace Thank you for the message and the clarity. I agree that there should be some compensation for claims such as this where the evidence in the blockchain and the API key, while valid, was not provided in a complete manner at the onset (missing Secret Key). While it would have been better that there is a functionality for this on chain instead of negotiating it here via messages, I will agree to compensate you for your costs plus some premium. Based on onchain data, I make the presumption that approximate 0.22 ETH was used to challenge this claim. Given the losses we have already suffered on our side, I propose to compensate you for 0.3(+gas fees) ETH if this will cover your loss plus some gain. If you should accede to such a request, I will send the amount and the evidence in the subsequent message. I hope that the jurors will rule appropriately, as this agreement cannot be an assurance anyway on my side. While I am confident that if ruling accordingly, the evidence included here contain the right data for the jurors to rule in my favor, I cannot discount that you would indeed suffer a loss from my mistake, so I willing will compensate you for that. I hope you would accept this. I again attach here proof of my transactions, and additional evidence that proves that the API will display the deposits and trades made as described in the accounting sheet. Thank you.

Evidence #5:

Settlement proposal from the challenger to the claimant The challenger agrees to withdraw their motion to vote "Reject" described in the last evidence section on a condition the claimant agrees with the challenger regarding maintaining challenger's incentive to challenge the claim and thus willingly transfers 0.721980130345875 Ether (claim deposit) to the challenger's address. In this case the motion in the previous evidence message can be considered withdrawn and the jurors are free to vote Accept/Reject based on the full evidence including the one submitted after the challenge was open. If the result of such vote is "Accept", the claimant may withdraw their initial 0.721980130345875 Ether claim deposit back, and will be able to withdraw the refund much faster, not having to go via adjust amount and another dispute. In case the claimant does not accept the settlement proposal, they are risking to lose their claim deposit (with it going to the challenger), having to reopen another dispute by paying the same amount again and delaying their case. In other words, the claimant is likely to spend exactly the same amount of Ether, to get their claim paid out, but spending much more time and bureaucratic work to get there. If the claimant accepts the challenger's proposal, they can reply with an evidence containing Etherscan link proving having transferred 0.721980130345875 Ether (claim deposit) to the challenger's address (0x2343e74a17a70503e1c62d808c8c2abfac926ace).

Evidence #6:

Motion to vote Reject It is in the challenger's opinion that just adding the requested evidence to the case during the challenge evidence period should not become grounds for accepting the claim. Such claim must be rejected, or at least ruled inconclusive, and then resubmitted via "adjust amount" functionality supported by Unslashed Smart Contracts with the new evidence, with a possibility to still get a payout. This is the only way that guarantees challenger holds their incentive to challenge such a claim: indeed, when the claimant wins the case after submitting the evidence late, the challenger loses their challenge deposit, even though they rightfully challenged an incomplete claim: there was zero possibility to verify claim's eligibility with the initial evidence. As such, the ruling on this particular dispute should be "Reject the claim". Claimant might still be able to receive the payout after adjusting the amount (even if by 1 wei), but will be penalized with their claim deposit for not doing it right away.

Evidence #7:

Filing of Incomplete Data The Revised evidence now includes the transaction data detailed in the suggested spreadsheet, and also now contains the secret key for the API provided in the new file.
Check this Case on Kleros Resolve