Dispute #256

Court Start Date Dispute Status Current Period Time remaining End Date
Non-Technical 2020-07-11 20:49 Already Ruled Execution Already Ruled 2020-07-19 13:04
Arbitrable Creator

Unique Votes in all the rounds

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
0 2 0 0

Round 0

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
0 3 0 0
Round 0 Vote Casting Date
No 2020-07-16 00:52
No 2020-07-14 20:49
No 2020-07-14 20:49


Evidences provided by Vagarish

Evidence #1:

The Content Is Not Repeating The Same Information The challenger now summarily brings up a new justification, without discussing the specifics of the submission. The justification is incorrect. By contrast to others, the submission here addresses the new trend of discussion of Ethereum as a “whale chain” and just-launched Validium layer-two (on DeversiFi). It is good knowledge specifically implemented and useful for this concern and for traders that may now find fees being too high. It is a good opportunity for DeversiFi to use this whale creative and copy to convert traders from the base chain. There is no requirement to make a “guide”. Some other submissions basically make a general guide of largely existing knowledge, post it on Uptrennd (where only refreshing/F5 adds a view count), get less than five upvotes, and get accepted. There is no reason to refuse a useful entry point into the specific current concerns, nor has the challenger even attempted to justify any. As a reminder, “other useful content” is another example for acceptance.

Evidence #2:

Not any condition is satisfied Policy: "Expand significantly the DeversiFi / Nectar knowledge base". Submitted article does not significantly expand the already existing knowledge base, thus does not satisfy above mentioned condition. It's not a novel and detailed guide, explaining new things which are not already mentioned multiple times in other articles (which also might have more reads/views). Repeating the same information does not expand the knowledge base, so this condition is not met. Furthermore this submission also doesn't satisfy any of the other conditions: "Is widely shared across social networks." OR "Has a significant audience on the platform it is posted.". Thus it should be denied from the DeversiFi High Impact list.

Evidence #3:

No conditions are met The submission does not satisfy any condition stated under: "Accept submissions that satisfy at least one of those conditions:", and therefore does not comply with the listing policy. A denial of this submission would be in line with the current rulings of similar cases, which got denied because of the same reason.

Evidence #4:

Knowledge Base Analysis First, just the creative image alone, originally designed for the message, is of high quality and delivers the message of impact or transformation that DeversiFi makes compared to existing exchanges. The registry has accepted a sticker pack with paid distribution (https://curate.kleros.io/tcr/0x6f15Ca438992d9a4d7281E7E80381C4d904B2A24/0x0eba87fb88fcc4ee00345c66788baee16c878c9bc51a3bf9056cceb7933cf4d0). While the image is of high quality for delivering knowledge, it may not be enough alone without the text’s expansion. The text is useful, novel content that expands the knowledge base by explaining the process and benefits in a novel manner in response to a unique and important question. It could also be used in the future either in the knowledge base or repurposed in some form to deliver this knowledge. For these reasons, the submission should be accepted and added to the registry.

Evidence #5:

The Story Was Submitted Under The Knowledge Base Condition One such eligible condition is to: “Expand significantly the DeversiFi /Nectar knowledge base” about, for example, the process, benefits, any useful content, etc. (Id.) The submission challenged here clearly indicated in title brackets to be about some “knowledge base”. Yet, it was challenged for alleged lack of distribution, a condition which does not apply to the type of submission. Therefore, this challenge should fail. If the Kleros Court wants to evaluate the sufficiency of the content as expanding the knowledge base although the challenger did not dispute it, then a quick review of the content indicates it meets the knowledge base criterion. Although the condition asks to “expand” the knowledge base, repeated efforts to explain the trading process have been made by other submitters and accepted. In this case time was taken to think about what to expand and original content was created. It should not be rejected while repeated knowledge is accepted.

Evidence #6:

Only One Condition Must Be Met The challenger cites the first sentence of the guidelines for the challenge justification. That section is comparable to recitals or the background of a legal document, while enforceable terms are following. That is, the “effect in distributing the said content” is only to the extent later required in the document. Being “widely shared across social networks” or having “a significant audience on the platform it is posted” are only two possible conditions for acceptance. (See Guidelines at p. 2.) It is not a condition for all submissions. The only condition applicable to “all submissions” is to: “Be mainly related to Nectar/DeversiFi or dapps relying on it.” (Id.) A submission must also “satisfy at least one of those conditions” previously enumerated on the same page. (Id.)

Evidence #7:

Challenge Justification Policy: "This tier of storytelling submissions is reserved for high quality / high impact content that reflects both effort made in creating, as well as effect in distributing the said content." Submitter has only 1 follower on Medium and the article itself has 2 claps and 0 comments, making this submission invalid for the high-impact criteria.
Check this Case on Kleros Resolve