Dispute #384

Court Start Date Dispute Status Current Period Time remaining End Date
Non-Technical 2020-09-20 07:48 Already Ruled Execution Already Ruled 2020-09-27 06:24
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 2020-09-22 20:01
No 2020-09-23 18:15
No 2020-09-22 20:22

Evidences

Evidences provided by Vagarish

Evidence #1:

Not the actual logo While the submitted logo appears on Coingecko and Etherscan, it does not appear on the project's website, github, telegram or twitter account. The logo on these accounts is systematically black lines over a colored background, but the blocks are never colourd.

Evidence #2:

Response to requester According to jurisprudence, token symbols should not contain any white (or other colour) edges. For instance the following submissions were rejected because of tis reason: dForce, OPUS, DMM: Governance, Robotina, Touch Smart Token, CBI Index 7, Aragon, etc. The Kleros TCR should not contain any bad logo's or incorrect data. We should strive to create the highest and most complete list of curated tokens in the whole space.

Evidence #3:

Logo does not appear pixelated, tiny edges are ok in a symbol design The logo does not appear pixelated at eye's sight on the curated list so it is of a definition high enough. The guidelines do not ask to be pixel perfect, just to be high enough for its purpose. Even professional designers can leave a few pixels, as you can see with the KEEP media kit token symbol in case 385. I'd argue here too that it is part of the symbol design to have some tiny edges of its center color around it on-purpose.

Evidence #4:

Token challenge Logo is of low quality, it has white edges.
Check this Case on Kleros Resolve