Dispute #318

Court Start Date Dispute Status Current Period Time remaining End Date
Non-Technical 2020-07-30 15:57 Already Ruled Execution Already Ruled 2020-08-11 16:33
Arbitrable Creator

Unique Votes in all the rounds

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
5 3 0 1

Round 0

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
1 2 0 0
Round 0 Vote Casting Date
No 2020-08-02 22:22
Yes 2020-08-04 03:13
No 2020-08-01 14:15

Round 1

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
5 1 0 1
Round 1 Vote Casting Date
Yes 2020-08-07 14:51
No 2020-08-04 18:06
Yes 2020-08-07 18:04
Yes 2020-08-04 21:47
Yes 2020-08-04 21:47
Yes 2020-08-05 03:01


Evidences provided by Vagarish

Evidence #1:

Submitted Logo Violates Listing Policy Listing Policy: "it should be centered and take most of the space available in the image." Challenged submission clearly does not comply with this rule. Download the logo and see for yourself (or see in the evidence document which was provided during the first appeal). The logo certainly does not take most of the available space, there is available space on the left, right, top and bottom of the logo. The size difference is also visible on tokens.kleros.io, notice how the Cap logo is significantly smaller than all the other logos in the TCR. To become compliant, the edges of the image should be cropped, so that the symbol takes most of the available space, but right now the logo violates the policy. Furthermore, the uploaded logo does not get used by other sources. The logo in the TCR should match the most used logo, precedence shows us this. On the basis of two above mentioned points, I urge the jurors to vote NO. We can not accept submissions which violate the listing policy and jurisprudence.

Evidence #2:

Agree with challenger I don't see why jurors are willing to accept this unfitting logo while it blatantly miss the "should take most of space" criteria. I am thus willing to participate in crowdfunding the challenger side and I hope some others will join so that we keep in line with the rules for the TCR.

Evidence #3:

Submission violates listing policy and must be rejected 0xBitcoin, Tellor (2 times), XIO, Karma DAO, and Unit Protocol, recently all got rejected from the TCR because the submitted logo did not match the most commonly used logo.The submitted Cap logo also does not match the most commonly used logo. The Cap logo which is used everywhere else, from CMC, to the Telegram of Cap, to Etherscam, is also endorsed by the Cap team. May I ask the jurors why they deem this submission as valid? While it violates listing policy and all similar submission got rejected. Dev, UniBomb, and Ampleforth, all recently got rejected from the TCR, because the submitted logo violated the listing policy for not taking most of the space available. LIsting Policy: "It should be centered and take most of the space available in the image." So not only is a wrong logo was submitted, the submitted image also does not take most of the available space. In the attached screenshot you can clearly see the impact that this has, the Cap logo is significantly smaller than all the other submissions. I don't understand how 3 jurors voted YES during the appeal round, while the requester did not even provide any evidence yet. This submission should have been rejected according to jurisprudence, but somehow jurors decided to vote the other way around (in comparison to the first round) in the appeal round. So if any juror could explain his decision here, that would be nice. Because this ruling goes against the rulings of similar disputes.

Evidence #4:

Tokens in the TCR should be correct and recognizable "Most commonly used by the community and crypto websites, as confirmed by Abe from Cap", weights heavier than, "It's the image that is used on the home page of Cap's website, but nowhere else". If Dapps will use the TCR, they'll want all the data to be correct and in line with the majority of other widely used and reputable sources. It's important that the logos of the tokens in the TCR matches with the rest of the community.

Evidence #5:

Image transparency As the challenger brought up the "most commonly used logo" according to Abe, is with a black background. That does not mean "correct" or "only" If the submitter used the first image displayed on CAP's own website, https://cap.finance/ they would have saved the image https://cap.finance/assets/logo-pure.svg which is the CAP logo on a transparent background. Thus no editing had to have been done to arrive at the submission as is. However, they also have other versions available at https://cap.finance/assets/ . The logos displayed on other websites could just as easily be taken from those files or a screenshot of the image from their page with the black background.

Evidence #6:

Logo is not fitting rules Rules are clear and indicate that the logo should "take most of the space available in the image." Yet, logo provided by submitter barely takes 30% of the picture, rest is transparent pixels (just open the picture with paint or any other program and see for yourself). Therefore logo is not fitting rules. Remember that T2CR needs quality logos following rules because it can be used by third party apps. An example of a fitting logo is attached to this evidence. So, this submission should be denied and submitter should push a fresh one with a logo qualifying listing criteria (again check attached file as an example of a correct logo).

Evidence #7:

submission The Challenger states "As the jurors already ruled against listing this submission and no further evidence was provided by the submitter, the ruling of the first round should be maintained during the appeal" This is misleading - that is not how Kleros works. The jury is free to consider all the evidence that is posted, regardless of when. To imply otherwise is incorrect. This CAP logo used on the CAP website (here: https://cap.finance/assets/logo-pure.svg) itself is just a transparent image. The black background is added because the pages it has shown up on are dark. The TCR rules DO NOT STATE that there is any requirement for the logo to be "the most commonly used" - in fact, it only says that about the Token Name. I have attached the TCR rules once again so you can clearly see that this rule the challenger cites does not even exist. The challenger cites that the CAP logo submitted leaves free space on some sides. That does not violate the rules. The rules state that the token logo must "take most of the space available in the image." The challenger then goes on to say that because free space is left on some sides that "most of the space" is not taken. Most means the majority, is this image majority white space? The rules do not state that the logo must touch the edges of the allotted space, just that it must take a majority.

Evidence #8:

Submission clearly violates policy and precedent Attached documents contains arguments for rejection of this submission.

Evidence #9:

Evidence for Case 328 appeal This challenged submission is being appealed on the basis that neither of the challenger's submitted evidences hold up to the Token Curated List Policies. (found here: https://ipfs.kleros.io/ipfs/QmbqgkZoGu7jJ8nTqee4NypEhK7YVBEJJmPJbJxz8Bx8nY/t2cr-primary-doc.pdf ) To the Challenger's first argument: The first icon image displayed is merely a thumbnail image. If you save or open the image in a new tab, you will find that it measures within the allotted measurements at approximately 416x166 pixels see attached image or check for yourself here: https://www.rapidtables.com/web/tools/pixel-ruler.html . As for the second argument: Yes the commonly used logo consists of a black background. However, the policy explicitly states, "Attached Logos should be PNG format with a transparent background." therefore it is in total compliance with the TCR policies. Thank you for your time, I rest my case.

Evidence #10:

Token challenge This submission is challenged on the basis of two different issues. 1. The logo does not take most of the space available, and 2. The most commonly used logo consists of a black background. See CMC, CoinGecko, Etherscan, Cap Telegram, Cap Twitter. Each violation on its own is enough to reject this submission.
Check this Case on Kleros Resolve