Dispute #385

Court Start Date Dispute Status Current Period Time remaining End Date
Non-Technical 2020-09-20 07:50 Already Ruled Execution Already Ruled 2020-10-17 06:16
Arbitrable Creator
Tokens

Unique Votes in all the rounds

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
6 11 0 2

Round 0

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
3 0 0 0
Round 0 Vote Casting Date
Yes 2020-09-25 17:22
Yes 2020-09-25 17:22
Yes 2020-09-25 18:10

Round 1

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
1 4 0 2
Round 1 Vote Casting Date
Pending
Pending
Yes 2020-10-01 08:20
No 2020-09-27 21:06
No 2020-09-27 21:06
No 2020-09-29 18:42
No 2020-10-01 01:51

Round 2

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
6 9 0 0
Round 2 Vote Casting Date
Yes 2020-10-06 20:07
Yes 2020-10-06 20:07
No 2020-10-03 19:28
Yes 2020-10-05 22:51
No 2020-10-06 21:16
No 2020-10-04 22:18
Yes 2020-10-03 11:10
No 2020-10-05 21:46
No 2020-10-05 21:46
No 2020-10-05 17:31
No 2020-10-05 22:04
No 2020-10-05 22:04
Yes 2020-10-06 14:32
Yes 2020-10-06 14:32
No 2020-10-06 19:38

Round 3

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
8 21 0 2
Round 3 Vote Casting Date
No 2020-10-13 14:05
No 2020-10-11 08:29
No 2020-10-11 08:29
Yes 2020-10-11 14:58
No 2020-10-10 06:09
No 2020-10-10 06:09
No 2020-10-10 06:09
Yes 2020-10-10 14:09
Yes 2020-10-10 14:09
Yes 2020-10-10 14:09
Yes 2020-10-10 14:09
Pending
No 2020-10-12 09:16
No 2020-10-10 18:13
Yes 2020-10-10 07:15
Yes 2020-10-10 07:15
No 2020-10-10 01:00
No 2020-10-10 01:03
No 2020-10-10 05:44
Pending
No 2020-10-11 00:49
No 2020-10-11 21:14
No 2020-10-11 21:14
No 2020-10-11 21:14
No 2020-10-11 21:14
No 2020-10-11 21:14
No 2020-10-11 19:47
No 2020-10-11 19:47
No 2020-10-11 19:47
No 2020-10-11 19:47
Yes 2020-10-10 23:57

Evidences

Evidences provided by Vagarish

Evidence #1:

Response to requester 1. The Maker submission was challenged for two alleged violations, incorrect logo AND incorrect name. At the time of the Maker dispute, the precedent was to list tokens to the T2CR, using the official project names, which resulted in also using the official project logos. Later, the policy rules were edited to: "➤ The name should be the most commonly used name to refer to the asset. It does not necessarily need to be the official name given by project creators nor the one in the token contract." As a result, jurisprudence changed to using most commonly used names, and likewise, most commonly used logos. At the time of the challenge, submitted logo DID NOT match the most commonly used logo. This also counts for appeal #1, appeal #2, and still, during appeal #3. 2. The logo which was submitted to the T2CR remains of low-quality. Attached is a high-quality version of the submitted logo. As you can see, the logo is crystal clear and without any green remains from being poorly cut. The truth remains, that the requester should have used a high-quality logo, when he submitted KEEP to the (High-Quality) token curated list called the Kleros T2CR. We cannot let poorly cut logos get accepted to the T2CR. Crisp logos (see attachment) should be submitted to the T2CR.

Evidence #2:

Dismantling the flood of precedents and the myth of their madeup jurisprudence The flood list of precedents for rejection is misinterpreted and incorrectly applied to this case. 1) Check the attached comparison of the quality list with KEEP. There is no jurisprudence to reject any tiny edge, those in the list were rejected because the quality was too low. The two that were not obviously pixelated actually were not included in full! 2) The "most commonly used logo" list also exaggerates or simply misinterprets the jurisprudence. The Maker case actually goes against challenger's argument (the most commonly used logo was rejected because there was an official Maker token logo), and was recognized when jurors decided to add MoneyToken, which supports requestor. In the MoneyToken case, Heliast challenged because of "wrong logo" and argued "Token Curated List Policies requires the most commonly used identifying information to be submitted when referring to the token, both in terms of name and logo." https://ipfs.kleros.io/ipfs/QmR7zcysSW9cemdcGJEuYewCyYT78YGNVv32gyn7tF8UcV/imt-heliast-ruling.pdf The requestor responded: "The challenger is lying. There is NO rule in the current TCR policy that state that the uploaded logo must be the widely used one. ... On submissions that DO HAVE different logos, the less used yet official token always won. Two submissions that the submitter is aware of: - MakerDAO (which the challenger conveniently skipped in their statement): https://tokens.kleros.io/token/0x420ad0a6c578dbd237f6ea77c969b4c906bdabb4719e3661c356ad1eecdf9c86 - DigixDAO: https://tokens.kleros.io/token/0xbf162ee983d98b6d954aa49141f0a753f083d29924dbe5ffe39e4cf68f5939b5 " https://ipfs.kleros.io/ipfs/QmP9NgKXUE51s9fpLygKjNqCFMJBrPWru4SYWiERcrt96o/imtdefense2.pdf Heliast even admitted "when a logo is officially and clearly designated by project members as the token logo, this element is sufficiently objective to be considered as a consensus. - however, when this is not the case, reference should be made to the most commonly used logo on an objective basis. ... Thus, the Submitter is right when he considers that an official logo should prevail over the most commonly used logo (cf. MKR, DGD). But in this case, the submitted logo is never used in an official way." https://ipfs.kleros.io/ipfs/Qmc4izfNH63Ccok1vqfx7TJ1uRhuSBWfLJ6ZCS5FLF5SkF/imt2-heliast-ruling.pdf With KEEP, there is NO point in arguing about a most widely used logo (even assuming this is a correct objective criterion) because there IS a logo specifically designated as the proper token logo and used in an official way.

Evidence #3:

New evidence from the KEEP Team + Rebuttal 0x90D8 KEEP’s design lead has updated us on the fact that websites like Coingecko and Coinmarketcap are using incorrect logos. (Attachment) She claims that the mint background logo is not the right token symbol. Also, now that the brand guides are readily available, they will start to standardize on these platforms. With this additional information, rejecting this submission makes absolutely no sense. Even if this round rules a NO majority, there will be an opportunity to appeal. Only jurors coherent with the last round will get rewarded. Rebuttal: I appreciate the effort you made in putting this evidence together. However, upon closer inspection, it should be taken with a grain of salt by any serious juror. 1. You provide an extensive list of 10 submissions that got rejected for being “poorly cut”. Yet, none of these logos come even close to the quality that this submission has. Matter of fact, 80% of them are HALF (or lower) the resolution of the KEEP symbol (450px). The other 20% (DMM: Governance & yearn.finance) are of the equal or larger resolution, but incredibly poorly edited. Jurors, please take a look: it is impossible to use this as a comparison to the KEEP logo’s quality. https://ipfs.kleros.io/ipfs/QmQKE92YzewWacg9vemXuyMQghnPRsSii4Sg5osUmi1ePS/Bcd7KtTL9jw9vrg1zTnrUfrDxRZvheqstBjyrdi8sftx3bqJPBMKnNU2KHehpVANMYQi5fEibXg2z56bF573KMvpdf 2. You nonchalantly edited in a screenshot of Clément commenting on a forum post, which is irrelevant. It is a weak attempt at persuading jurors by pointing to “authority”. Even better, Clément claims the logo should be of high quality. Since the requester uploaded the KEEP token symbol straight from the KEEP Press Kit, it is hard to argue about it not being high quality. 3. None of your “consistency cases” is similar to case 385. It is impossible to refer to past cases, where the submitted logo was the -only- correct token symbol, yet it got rejected.

Evidence #4:

Jurisprudence; two lists At least 10 submissions got rejected because of poorly cut logos, that's why I am resorting to jurisprudence. In attached pdf file you can find all the information about them, together with list of rejected submissions for not using the most commonly used logo. Furthermore, the file contains responses to the arguments made in previous posted comment.

Evidence #5:

Rebuttal 0x90D8...8005 1. >"The green edges are clearly visible all around the logo". First of all, this is subjective. I cannot see "clear green edges all around the logo". This could have been a monitor issue, but since you have taken a screenshot, it is now clear that this is an issue of personal perception. T2CR Policy: “It should be of a definition high enough such that it should not appear pixelated or blurry unless those are on-purposes features of the symbol.” We have to reduce subjectivity and refer to the T2CR Policy. Let’s be honest here: does this logo look pixelated or blurry? It has been uploaded STRAIGHT from KEEP’s official press kit. It is simply the best resource online for the token symbol. 2. >“The official KEEP media channels (Telegram and Twitter), CoinMarketCap, CoinGecko, Etherscan, and a bunch of less known coin trackers, consistently use the logo which consists of a mint green background.”. Again, there is no policy rule that states the TOKEN SYMBOL should be the same as the PROFILE PICTURES of the project’s media channel. Project logos and token symbols are obviously not the same and can differ. You are creating fallacies here. Even worse: you have no foundation in the policy for this “consistency issue”. Would you like to use “jurisprudence” as a last resort? Well, supporters of the submitter can do the same: What about this recent case – it is obviously of worse quality than the KEEP symbol. Yet, it has been accepted in the T2CR. PROM Token: https://tokens.kleros.io/token/0x9dbd617ee1cb2e69104d9547d3c51a62600d83f4a7ef026366c21b8147fa84da PROM Logo: https://ipfs.kleros.io/ipfs/QmZyCu9u4kRy5oFFef8H1ZQjYehozmR541q9Mx9AQwf8Lq/BcdyB9gs3D7sbgWsywXehRKnedjXhaYLJntY9oqzLKA3q5UiHLQFYjoMgMcGCakznHUjPkEHnNLDZY2JLkNUDvk96k What happened in KEEP's case, is that a logo that is of sufficient quality for the T2CR has been challenged too hastily, without the challenger’s due diligence. Both the team’s design lead (see evidence in previous post) and the brand guidelines state that this is simply the correct logo – and that it should be used OVER the one with the mint green background. Let’s add it to the token list and get on with it.

Evidence #6:

Rebuttal 0x9456...49e1 "The evidence clearly shows there are no visual problems in lower resolutions, and very negligible problems in ultra-high resolutions." 1. I took this screenshot (without zooming in) on a 1080p screen, which is far from ultra-high resolution. As you can see, the green edges are clearly visible all around the logo, and on the right most. "It is now clear that the consistency problem no longer holds any power in this case." 2. Because? It still is a problem and does certainly hold power in this case. The official KEEP media channels (Telegram and Twitter), CoinMarketCap, CoinGecko, Etherscan, and a bunch of less known coin trackers, consistently use the logo which consists of a mint green background. In this pdf you can read find jurisprudence about using the most commonly used logo for the T2CR.

Evidence #7:

Rebuttal 0x9bfD...4853 While your points are both valid, they are cherrypicked and misleading for new jurors. 1. The forum post has not been used as the main reasoning for accepting this submission. This submission complies with the CURRENT T2CR policy, so your references were unnecessary. 2. The forum post was mentioned briefly in the evidence (attachment) as additional supporting information for jurors. It states clearly that it is a suggestion and opinion of a Kleros team member. 3. When using resources from another company, a brand guide should be respected. However, you are right: if someone decides to violate these rules, and chooses to use the logo on a dark background, it still won’t be an issue. The evidence clearly shows there are no visual problems in lower resolutions, and very negligible problems in ultra-high resolutions. It is now clear that the consistency problem no longer holds any power in this case. A confirmation of the KEEP team’s design lead and a supporting brand book is more than sufficient as a defence. Lastly, this case rests upon the fact if the logo is of high enough quality to be accepted into the T2CR. I urge all remaining jurors to vote based on their honest opinion on this. This case should have a fair outcome. In the end, only coherent jurors with the last round’s outcome will be rewarded. Vote wisely.

Evidence #8:

Juror thoughts As a juror, here is my thoughts on the latest evidence: About the forum: A forum about a policy change proposal holds no power in court. After all, it is a proposal, nothing final yet. 1. First, the policy proposal will be discussed on the forum, 2. Then, additions will be made to the proposal based on the input of the Kleros community, 3. After most of the people on the forum agree with the proposal, it will be put to vote, 4. Then, it needs to be accepted by the majority of the voters, 5. And last but not least, it needs to be enacted. As long as is it not enacted yet, it holds no power in court. For jurisprudence for this, look at the Robotina case where a policy proposal was even already voted for, but as it was not enacted/executed yet, it has no power in court yet. For reference: (https://tokens.kleros.io/token/0xa5eff5969faa02a390b455672486d8b46e2312fc22f30fb033b4207cc14a4701) Background: The TCR is a generic list and the Kleros team nor the community have any power over how other people/dapps will integrate it. They might use it on a light background, they might use it on a dark background, it's up to them to decide. So the argument about the KEEP brand guide which states that the logo shouldn't be used on a dark background, is not relevant for the Kleros T2CR. In fact, the logo with the mint green background would be more fitting for the T2CR anyways, as it will be clearly visible on both a light and a dark background.

Evidence #9:

Be pedantic with the objective part of the policy text about quality "It should be of a definition high enough _such that_ it should not _appear_ pixelated or blurry unless those are on-purpose features of the symbol." The policy asks to be of a definition high enough, which is subjective, but only SUCH THAT objectively the symbol should not APPEAR pixelated or blurry. The submitted symbol is obviously not blurry, not pixelated overall, but has a tiny edge when paying close attention. Wiktionary defines pixelated as "an image, having pixels that are large enough to be individually visible from a normal viewing distance." The edge does not make the image visibly APPEAR pixelated, so it does not violate the objective policy part to APPEAR pixelated. The token details page makes this clear and the new evidence above discusses why it will not appear pixelated in other scenarios. As a Kleros dev wrote: "Minimum resolution is 128x128 so client applications can’t assume more than that, even if some of the images are bigger than 500x500." "We need symbols to use them as icons, not high resolution, pixel-perfect images." https://forum.kleros.io/t/revisiting-t2cr-policy/460 I urge the jurors to be pedantic with the objective part of the policy text and with the spirit of the icon registry, over being pedantic with the logo quality by subjectively applying a standard that is too high, too perfect for some tokens and for some other jurors.

Evidence #10:

New Evidence for Accepting KEEP (Team Response) Dear jurors, attached to this post, you can find an extensive document with reasons why we should accept this submission into the T2CR. In there, you can find the response of Liz Shinn, Design Lead at KEEP, about this dispute. She states that we should use the transparent background logo over the mint green background one. Let's vote yes.

Evidence #11:

Responses to Requester 1. There is in fact a clear precedent about using the most commonly used logo for each submission, as numerous submissions got rejected due to this exact reason. It's easy to say that all previous rulings could be incorrect, but that's just not how it works. Unit Protocol and XIO were both rejected for EXACTLY the same thing as this case. Both were first submitted as round logos, but both got denied, because the most commonly used logos had a squared colored background. All the other disputes I listed in my evidence file were also due to not using the most commonly used logo. You can find that list here: (https://ipfs.kleros.io/ipfs/QmSgwgc8Nac4E4Ebsu4pGknSowLRHn3tRkKePChNrtpYcd/keep-network.pdf). All these disputes are easily verifiable, as you can view each one by clicking on the links that I provided there. 2. It actually does matter a lot that all coin tracking websites + official Keep Network media channels use another logo than you submitted here. If all sources use the same logo, why should we use another logo in the TCR? Additionally, your argument about the Twitter and Telegram logo having a thick green edge around the logo (when viewed in rounded display) invalidates your own submission, because then you would still have provided the wrong logo. Imagine that you submitted the correct logo to the TCR (so with the mint background), then that logo would look EXACTLY the same as on the Keep Network official media channels if viewed in a rounded cropped display. Namely, a black round circle with a thick green edge. I want to urge the jury to follow jurisprudence, and consequently reject this submission. 3. It is your own responsibility to do due diligence before submitting. The fact that you didn't know about following Kleros jurisprudence, is your own mistake, and does not mean that jurors should accept your submission out of pity. When you put a deposit, you basically say that your submission is conform the guidelines AND jurisprudence, or else you risk losing your deposit. This is just how Kleros works. This mechanism makes sure that people are incentivized to make correct submissions, while also incentivizing the Kleros community to double check submissions made to the TCR for mistakes or scam attempts (for instance through fake contract addresses). We cannot allow to step away from jurisprudence, because someone did not know about this. Yes, it can feel unfair to lose your deposit, because you didn't know you had to provide the most commonly used logo, but you knew the risks and rewards of submitting beforehand. The sole reason that you are submitting tokens to the TCR, is because you want to farm PNK. So saying that it feels wrong to deny this submission is nonsense. You knew about the risks of submitting tokens to the TCR, and you still decided to join the PNK reward program, because you wanted to make profits and farm PNK.

Evidence #12:

No violation of clear precedent rule or quality 1. Ruling that the most commonly used logo, which might be with the green background, must be used feels wrong and almost a trap, because as the submitter I never saw that in the guidelines or told that all jurisprudence must be reviewed before submitting. The challenger then wants to forfeit the deposit and submits around 20 cases difficult to review fully or argue over. Some of them were not argued, had other challenge justifications, had the core of the symbol in white or light color needing a background with contrast, etc. No doubt, there is an implied rule the logo must be the actual _token_ symbol (that is the common sense) and the logo should be included in full, which get applied in those cases. As there is no clearly expressed rule that the token must be the most commonly used, concluding this is all what many cases were about could be wrong, or any case that would have ruled on this justification alone could be wrong. Jurisprudence is to be prudent, but there is no court policy that a precedent case must be faithfully followed. An acceptable version of the KEEP symbol was included in full and of quality high enough, so the jurors should side with upholding the clear application of the guidelines, and not scare new users away because of subtilities. 2. It doesn't matter that coin trackers took the same logo as in Telegram and Twitter, which have a logo about the project and not specifically the transparent token. Actually the resulting displays after Telegram and Twitter rounded the logo show that Keep wants a small green edge to show, for example: https://t.me/KeepNetworkOfficial/ Refusing this submission would fail to accept the _actual_ transparent token symbol and all official features present in the symbol (being in the media kit). The last two arguments about quality are wrong because they ask for excellence and for perfect quality, while the policy asks for a quality high enough. Clement also speaks "to keep the list high quality", not perfect quality, in that screenshot (the other rejections like Powerpool had worst quality than Keep). There is clearly some leeway or the policy should be worded differently. If there is any tiny fault in the Keep press kit token, it is not enough to reject this submission.

Evidence #13:

Summary of arguments against listing 1. The logo submitted to the TCR does not match the logo which is used everywhere else. All of the following sources use the same logo, which is different than was submitted here: CoinMarketCap, CoinGecko, Etherscan, Coinbase, Coinpaprika, Live Coin Watch, WorldCoinIndex, CryptoCompare, CoinCheckup, CoinLore, and the official Telegram channel and Twitter profile. Data (name, ticker and logo) in the TCR is striving to match the most commonly used (by websites, community and team), why should it be any different for this submission? Common sense and jurisprudence tells us that the most commonly used logo should be used, thus a rejection of this submission should follow. 2. P.S. The Kleros team is striving to create a high quality curated token list with the TCR, and to show how easy it is to provide a high quality, I included the round Keep Network logo in the attachments, without any green anomalies around the logo. I did this within 5 minutes, which shows how little time is needed to create a high quality logo, from a low quality logo. WARNING: the most commonly used logo should still be used for the TCR, so I don't recommend using the logo I attached. It was merely to show the ease and importance of submitting high quality logos.

Evidence #14:

Should not be accepted This is a curated list that is meant to be synonymous with excellence, the logo is badly cut and should be rejected. Please see attached event

Evidence #15:

Accept KEEP The evidence supporting the submission of this token to the T2CR is already good enough. However, I would like to strengthen it to reduce confusion: 1. The challenger hastily challenged this submission based on its “low quality”. After realizing the symbol is actually of the HIGHEST quality available online AND a resource of their official press kit – the challengers quickly became desperate to find another reason. 2. Keep Network offers a very professional brand guide and supplies third parties with high quality logos to use. Even Coinbase, which is known for its professionalism and strong due diligence, has chosen to use THIS EXACT logo for their communication. (See sources below). 3. Challengers have been submitting false evidence in desperation. They make up fake policy rules like “it must be the most commonly used logo, otherwise people won’t recognize the project”. Of course, it is common sense that we should use the most commonly used token symbol. However, the main identifiers of the KEEP symbol are the black circle with the mint green ‘K’-mark – not a colored background. On top of this, it even complies with an ACTUAL policy rule: “Attached logos should be PNG format with a transparent background”. I urge jurors to pay close attention to the reality of this case, following both (actual) policy rules and their own common sense. In the end, Kleros rewards this behavior. Coinbase: https://blog.coinbase.com/coinbase-custody-to-support-celo-gold-cgld-filecoin-fil-keep-network-keep-near-protocol-6b54fc4c183a Press Kit: https://keep.network/press

Evidence #16:

Clear violation of jurisprudence Requester: "The guidelines are clear" Response: It seems they are not clear for you, though. The transparent background rule only exists to eliminate submissions where the most commonly used logo consists of a transparent background, but where the requester provided a logo with a white background. In the case of logos where a non-transparent background is a feature, logos submitted to the TCR should also have that background. If that background is made transparent, it will violate the following policy rule: ➤The logo should be fully included. There was even a case where a submission was rejected, because the background of submitted logo was transparent, while the most commonly used logo had a white background (see STAKE dispute). The following tokens in the TCR all have a non transparent background: Fetch, Fantom, Crypto.com, Dock, SingularityNET, Maecenas, Swarm City, Swerve, SushiSwap, UniLayer, Unit Protocol, XIO, and STAKE. This evidence invalidates the argument of the requester, that all logos in the TCR must have a transparent background. The CAP dispute is one of the many disputes which set a precedent, that the most commonly used logo should be used, and no other. (https://tokens.kleros.io/token/0x329b51ee991166bf25ec4d66316c198ba91c431faaa039e0247795dd8e40a2be) Requester: "Most media and professional sites will use this." Response: Then why all of the media and professional sites consistently use the logo WITH the mint green background? Requester: "The official tiny edges make the symbol look shiny which could be "features of the symbol."" Response: Are you serious? It's just the effect of poorly cutting from a green background, making it low quality. In summary, a precedent of using the most commonly used logo has been set numerous times. Thus, the only correct logo for Keep Network (KEEP) is the logo with a mint green background, as it's being used everywhere. I want to remind the jurors that guidelines are never 100% complete, this is impossible. Evidently, jurisprudence clearly shows that the most commonly used logo should be used, even if it consists of a colored background. Submitted logo obviously does not match the most commonly used logo and should therefore be rejected from the TCR.

Evidence #17:

Follow the clear guidelines 1. The guidelines are clear: "Attached Logos should be PNG format with a transparent background." "The token symbol should be a transparent PNG ..." P. 6 of the Keep media guide (screenshot attached) from https://keep.network/press shows token trackers should use the transparent PNG available in this kit (used for this submission). Most media and professional sites will use this. Even if the green background is used elsewhere to represent the project, a project icon is sometimes different. The actual coin symbol is supposed to be transparent. 2. The official tiny edges make the symbol look shiny which could be "features of the symbol." The appeal PDF unfairly zooms the PNG. The real shining keeps the symbol "of a definition high enough." Conclusion: Keep adding this token and this precedent will reflect the guidelines.

Evidence #18:

Evidence against listing Attached is an pdf file, containing evidence against listing Keep Network.

Evidence #19:

Jurisprudence does not apply because logo is of a higher quality sufficient enough Continued... Touch Smart: had more apparent edge. The KEEP logo is visibly of higher quality than those rejected logos and it meets the condition to be "of a definition high enough."

Evidence #20:

No need for most widely used logo In the guidelines I don't see a need to attach the most widely used logo. That's said for the name only. The basic conditions are to be PNG, transparent, under some size limits, centered, taking most space, avoiding the name, of a definition high enough and fully included. It obviously needs to be the token logo, but there is some leeway. Asking me to reupload with the green background is inappropriate because both the TCR and KEEP team prefer transparency. Asking me to remove a tiny edge is inappropriate because the official logo is already of a definition high enough. The jurisprudence listed had additional or different challenge reasons: dForce: had more apparent edge, more reasons for challenge, no submitter argument - OPUS: had more apparent edge, was tied at first round btw - DMM: cut the image correct shape (not fully included) - Robotina: round edges were cut (not fully included) - CBI Index 7: round was cut at bottom (not fully included) - Aragon: challenged because "contours of the logo are not clear" and that was apparent at eye's sight.

Evidence #21:

Submission should be rejected according to jurisprudence Sometimes, in fact there is a need to edit the official logo. If the official logo is of poor quality, as submitted Keep Network token symbol, it needs to be edited to remove the remains of a poorly cut logo. Those green edges around the logo are definitely not a feature, they are the result of poorly cutting it from a green background. The TCR requires high quality logos, not some poorly cut logos (which looks like it is done by an amateur). According to jurisprudence, submissions with poorly cut token symbols should be rejected (see list of rejected submission in my evidence above). Besides of the reason stated above, this submission should also be rejected for not using the most commonly used token symbol (see CMC, CoinGecko, Etherscan). TCR requires the most commonly used logo, which consists of a green background. Therefore, the jurors are urged to vote NO in this dispute.

Evidence #22:

No need to edit the official media logo Policy: "It should be of a definition high enough such that it should not appear pixelated or blurry unless those are on-purpose features of the symbol." The policy does not ask to be perfectly cut but to have a definition high enough. It matters that it is the official media logo because it proves sufficient quality and that the tiny edge may even be "on-purpose features of the symbol." If I went to remove the tiny edge I bet someone else could come and challenge because I removed a feature or did not include the logo in full, missing some green pixels!

Evidence #23:

Response to requester It does not matter if it does not appear pixelated at eye's sight on the curated list. We can't let any entries with suboptimal logo's enter the TCR, as we should strive to create a high quality list of curated tokens. The fact that the logo was taken from the official media kit does not matter too, fact remains that it's poorly cut and should thus be rejected. The following submissions all got rejected because of poorly cut token symbols: dForce, OPUS, DMM: Governance, Robotina, Touch Smart Token, CBI Index 7, Aragon, etc.

Evidence #24:

Logo does not appear pixelated and is this way on-purpose The logo exactly comes from the token symbol folder in the official media kit: https://keep.network/press It does not appear pixelated at eye's sight on the curated list so it is of a definition high enough. It is this way on-purpose by features of the symbol coming from the official design.

Evidence #25:

Token challenge Logo is of low quality, green edges around the edges.
Check this Case on Kleros Resolve