Dispute #134

Court Start Date Dispute Status Current Period Time remaining End Date
Non-Technical 2019-12-03 19:27 Already Ruled Execution Already Ruled 2019-12-12 00:35
Arbitrable Creator
Tokens

Unique Votes in all the rounds

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
0 3 0 0

Round 0

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
0 3 0 0
Round 0 Vote Casting Date
No 2019-12-06 04:44
No 2019-12-08 12:26
No 2019-12-05 20:21

Evidences

Evidences provided by Vagarish

Evidence #1:

submitter is right but about the wrong court. Requester arguments are perfectly understandable, unfortunately, this is the TCR court. Our role here is to make sure the token submitted is perfectly compliant with the TCR standard in order to curate the list for a more specialized subcourts such as the ERC20 badge subcourt. this subcourt need to be "tough" but fair and maybe a be machine-like about compliance because this is the foundation of the badge courts. We can't build something on shaky foundations. I invite the requester to re-submit the token with a reformed resolution, I have no doubt that this new and more compliant submission will pass through the verification process without any form of issue. Therefore I invite jurors to reject the current submission.

Evidence #2:

winding tree statement It is indeed the case that the submitted logo is less than required 200px. So, according to the letter of the law, the submission should be rejected. But it would not be right according to the spirit of the law. After all this court is about verifying ERC20 compliance. In the real court the judge, if a procedural error, like this one, was discovered, would give the responsible party a chance to correct the deficiency, simply because the quality of the logo has nothing to do with the concept of ERC20 token. So a better way for this court to work is to allow the submitter to resolve some problems (image quality, typos, etc.) during some grace period. The problem with our submission was because of the fact that our original logo is in SVG format, a format that all modern browsers support, a format that is scalable to any size without quality loss. But this court only accepts PNG images, so we had to convert it and default converter parameters resulted in this small image. But again, why wouldn't the software alert the submitters about the small image size? It's probably one line of code, and it does look like a loophole for challengers to make a quick buck. One line of code would have prevented this situation. The 200px should never have been a rule for humans to follow, but for computers to automatically enforce. If Kleros ERC20 court developers could update the file to a bigger one ( here's the link: https://lif.windingtree.com/static/img/lif.a779e414839b.svg ), the problem would be resolved. In any case, whatever the jurors decision is going to be, Kleros ERC20 court has some work to do.

Evidence #3:

Token challenge Logo quality is low and appears pixelated. The submitter should re-submit a logo of a higher quality.
Check this Case on Kleros Resolve