Dispute #165

Court Start Date Dispute Status Current Period Time remaining End Date
General Court 2020-03-13 17:03 Already Ruled Execution Already Ruled 2020-03-30 04:25
Arbitrable Creator
None 0x9655...b79a

Unique Votes in all the rounds

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
1 1 0 1

Round 0

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
1 1 0 1
Round 0 Vote Casting Date
0x982f5698febb2b8d1b9a560228abbceafbb11568 Yes 2020-03-18 18:41
0xc6d63a94b556239ccde8905129032dcd8627e079 Pending
0xda1a3cc89879dae1ab0e00ae2426ba64e483c158 No 2020-03-22 01:08

Evidences

Evidences provided by Vagarish

Evidence #1:

Points In Reply to 0x982f...1568 0x982f argues paying for subsequent periods "doesn't make sense" but fails to point to specific terms in support of its position. The program is in fact a "3-month bounty," with monthly distribution for a creator's "campaign performance over three months." (Blog Post.) Again, "[a]ll campaigns created with Kleros as an arbitrator between December 25, 2019 and March 25, 2020 at 00:00 UTC will be taken into account" and, contrary to 0x982f's unsupported personal view, none of the terms separates the program in "instances." Its concern of getting new campaigns "diluted by old campaigns" is minimized by the monthly reset in new donations thanks to the monthly distribution, while keeping in line with the explicit intent to be "rewarding campaign creators ... based on their campaign performance over three months." (Blog Post.) 0x982f's interpretation of the exclusion altogether of previous campaigns (although no where so written) would have done little to address this concern, as previous creators would simply have used different goals or milestones in campaigning. The program seeks performance and a best campaign, and provided the expectation there would be rewards for amounts raised in subsequent periods as well.

Evidence #2:

Paying For Subsequent Periods Doesn't Make Sense Paying for subsequent periods is effectively the same as running a single 3-month bounty. So if it was the intention, the bounty would be simply a single three months period. However, the bounty creator wants to incentivize campaign creations by creating three 1-month instances of the bounty, thus giving chance for new campaigns to earn rewards and not get diluted by old campaigns. That's why we have three instances of 1-month bounty periods. Therefore, I vote for "Reward only for the amount raised in that month".

Evidence #3:

Memorandum Of Points A Complete Review Of The Blog Post Indicates A Campaign's Performance And Rewards Are Over Three Months
Check this Case on Kleros Resolve