Dispute #198

Court Start Date Dispute Status Current Period Time remaining End Date
English Language 2020-05-22 16:11 Already Ruled Execution Already Ruled 2020-06-05 16:11
Arbitrable Creator
Dispute Resolver 0x5dce...025c

Unique Votes in all the rounds

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
3 0 0 0

Round 0

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
3 0 0 0
Round 0 Vote Casting Date
0xb876c875b463683b47fb3dbe938399950d7d8e75 Yes 2020-05-25 22:33
0xc26f827f1b8cf661a7bca954bb21eb6138a27101 Yes 2020-06-01 03:58
0xfeff3e7e11782020cbca7d8372d5334264685cd4 Yes 2020-05-25 23:58


Evidences provided by Vagarish

Evidence #1:

The author's definition for Security Tokens was ok and the grammar in the article was ok overall Security Token Definition In the article it says "I define security tokens as any blockchain based representation of value that is subject to regulation under security laws." This way of defining security tokens gets around the complexities of defining security law regulation which is complex (and something I did not sign up to adjudicate on!). In my opinion, referring to "Security laws" is an appropriate catch-all term that can be considered correct for all jurisdictions. Grammar The article is written in the style of a blog on Medium therefore I think a couple of grammar mistakes should get a pass. For example, the sentence "That includes tokens representing traditional assets like equity, debt, derivatives, and real estate, and it also includes pre-launch utility tokens that are deemed securities by the SEC." would probably be more correct if it started "These include tokens..." because it is referring to "security tokens" (plural) in the previous sentence. The only actual error I could find was in the sentence "It means these assets to be able to reference each other contractually and interact in an automated way." should say "It means these assets *would* be able to reference..."
Check this Case on Kleros Resolve