Dispute #390

Court Start Date Dispute Status Current Period Time remaining End Date
Non-Technical 2020-09-21 21:12 Already Ruled Execution Already Ruled 2020-10-06 05:01
Arbitrable Creator
Tokens 0x4a2c...0488

Unique Votes in all the rounds

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
3 3 0 3

Round 0

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
1 2 0 0
Round 0 Vote Casting Date
0x8dca414776ae8478c5e2141ecdd21f716a9010d9 Yes 2020-09-27 07:22
0xfa9e221a7af006531a816e98792a3e4b22a01461 No 2020-09-27 03:44
0xfa9e221a7af006531a816e98792a3e4b22a01461 No 2020-09-27 03:44

Round 1

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
2 2 0 3
Round 1 Vote Casting Date
0x10beff1b93cb379c2d4c1848e7cadf7df5b7d19a Pending
0x8a7e71537839b390e837343eed1b911700500ec5 Pending
0x945674691713d1e8d02832d20777b933036e49e1 Yes 2020-09-30 09:57
0x982f5698febb2b8d1b9a560228abbceafbb11568 Yes 2020-10-01 17:54
0xa64a17a51482f96a794c08fa3e61bb6260eeb2ca No 2020-09-29 00:55
0xada910ccda8e2eb20c42210fb1584f66c6af45d3 Pending
0xe5dd78c224f26e306c84a9b1aa2def30bdf15835 No 2020-09-29 23:03

Evidences

Evidences provided by Vagarish

Evidence #1:

Clement's comment about striving for High Quality TC2R "I think we should strive to keep the T2CR the highest quality list out there and this means making sure information including logo are well standardized and of high quality." - SEE ATTACHMENT.

Evidence #2:

Stop Lying and Falsely Accusing Me You are talking a lot of gibberish. 1. I am not even close to 20 challenges in that time period, so why are you making up that I did more than 20, wtf? Stop trying to put me in a bad light, by making stuff up... And yes, when I win a dispute and the losing party wants to appeal, of course I will fund the appeal too. Btw, I only funded 1/3 of of this appeal, 2 other random people funded the rest. 2. If you did any due diligence, you would see that both addresses are actually related to this case, so stop posting things which are not true. This is just another address of me (the challenger) and that other evidence posting address funded a piece of the appeal. 3. Where did I say that the state of reality did or not not change? Indeed, I did not. I simply explained how law works. Let's say the policy got changed at this moment. Then that change would not affect current cases, as the state of reality before the challenge was made is what the jury should decide on. Read for instance through the evidence of the Spendcoin badge dispute. I hope you will understand it then (https://tokens.kleros.io/badge/0x916deaB80DFbc7030277047cD18B233B3CE5b4Ab/0xDDD460bBD9F79847ea08681563e8A9696867210C). 4. Stop ranting on about how me and all the other evidence posters are telling blatant lies, while we are obviously not doing that. Because you don't understand something, does not mean we are telling blatant lies. Falsely accusing people of blatantly lying is inappropriate behavior, so stop doing that please. For now I am done discussing, because all you are doing is name-calling and accusing me of lying. Have a good day!

Evidence #3:

Warning to Jurors & Refute Challenger This case has quickly become a danger for inattentive jurors. Both addresses who have been defending the challenger are unrelated to this case. They have been almost solely active in Kleros courts as evidence posters, with a heavy activity that started in the last week. Coincidentally, the challenger has been busy doing 20+ challenges and appeals on Kleros in the same period. Does this mean that people submitting to Kleros are that incapable of following simple policy guidelines, or is there something more to this? On top of that, the third parties posting evidence are telling us blatant lies: 1. The state of reality of the T2CR did not change during this case. The forum post can be used as an extra assurance for jurors who are accepting the submission. It confirms that the recent change of activity in the T2CR court is being noticed and that people want to shed light on these issues for future avoidance. 2. The logo is not of crisp quality when stretched in full resolution, but suffices for the purpose of the Kleros T2CR. Please note that Prometeus does not offer a transparent dark .png logo with better resolution anywhere online. (See evidence I attached) 3. The “edges” are invisible when the symbol is used in its original purpose of 128x128px. (See evidence II attached). It is with some worry that I am observing this case. I urge jurors to stay calm and read the evidence thoroughly. You only have to be coherent with the voting of the last round. For this reason, I have voted YES in the first round: because I believe in the fairness of Kleros in the end. (Refer to case 360 as an extreme example of last round outcome: http://kleroscan.com/dispute/360)

Evidence #4:

Logo is of rather low quality I attach a capture of the uploaded logo at 50% zoom. It is enough to see that the logo is not only poorly cut, but also the real resolution is low. Furthermore, the flame, that should be of solid orange color, is blurred and non uniform in its color. The black ribbon is also very poorly cut, leaving white/grey bands around it. In summary, low quality of the logo justifies rejection

Evidence #5:

Clear Precedent, see list of rejections. In the spirit of law, new information arising after a dispute has already been created is irrelevant and should be viewed as void. Jurors should only take into account the state of reality at the moment of the challenge. Although that even doesn't really matter anyways in this case, as the white edges around the logo are even visible when fully zoomed out (when viewed on a dark background). Uploaded logo is simply of low quality and should thus be rejected. And btw, a forum post means nothing in the court of law. Guidelines and jurisprudence are what the jury should take into account. Following jurisprudence clearly leads to a rejection of this submission. PowerPool (CVP), DMM: Governance (DMG), dForce (USDx), yearn.finance (YFI), Touch Smart Token (TST), OPUS (OPT), and more, all got rejected because of remaining edges around the logo because of poorly removing the colored background from the image. This is a very clear precedent. Name any recent submission of a logo with such edges that got accepted into the TCR, indeed, there isn't. It should be more than clear that this submission should be denied as well.

Evidence #6:

Rebuttal 0x90D8...8005 False defence 1: A recent Kleros forum post clarifies of the use case of logo’s on the T2CR. The images are symbols belonging to the asset. Symbols can be low resolution, since they are displayed in small frames. This symbol has no visual flaws in smaller scaling. “Symbols are intended to be used as icons (at a maximum size of 128x128pxs), not meant to be displayed in high resolutions. They should be of a definition high enough such that image should not appear pixelated or blurry when displayed in 128x128pxs unless those are on-purpose features of the symbol or unless its the best image available.” Source: https://forum.kleros.io/t/revisiting-t2cr-policy/460 False defence 2: Crypto.com has been requested for removal after the evidence mentioned it. However, I admit my mistake on this one. After close inspection, the logo is only 64x64px, which explained the blurriness and makes it clearly unfit for the T2CR. This is a good example of a valid rejection. Source: https://etherscan.io/tx/0xcf2c3e63116e88cb412e6c7f16d74f6e87974736d58549b8f2f90f20fa61aab5 False defence 3: “The jurors in the first round voted correctly by voting NO.” > There was only one juror with two votes, not multiple jurors like you claim. This automatically ruled the case to be rejected, independent of others’ judgement. Source: https://etherscan.io/tx/0x71d87796ffd7a7ae397e579fc5be8305c8a9b0701e818d602cf548839eb057a9 With this rebuttal of the dubious evidence posted below and the new information on the symbol's purpose, it should be clear for jurors that this item is a valid submission for the T2CR.

Evidence #7:

Reject this submission False claim: "The symbol will be used in small to medium-sized format only, which makes these edges invisible." - This is simply not true. The Kleros TCR can be used in any way, however the project wants to implement the TCR. Maybe a crypto information website (like CMC) wants to use the TCR as backend, and they want to display the logos in large size. We have to make sure that the Kleros TCR has as many purposes as possible. And for that, high quality logos should be submitted to the TCR, not bad ones like this, which is poorly cut. Another false claim: "The dark symbol will only be used on a light background, so any edges will be assured to be invisible for an extra reason" - Same answer as above, you don't know how and by whom the TCR will be used. Maybe someone will display the logos on a dark background. claim: "The edges are only visible on the stretched out version. Refer to Crypto.com @ T2CR. It has been registered and is even blurry in medium size." - Crypto.Com is being removed from the list as we speak. Jurors in this case should follow jurisprudence, which clearly indicates that poorly cut logos should be rejected. The jurors in the first round voted correctly by voting NO. Jurors in the appeal round should follow their decision, as this submission clearly violates jurisprudence.

Evidence #8:

Justification for YES Rejection of visual problems with the logo should only happen if they are visible when displayed as an icon, to be precise 128x128px. The icon's source image has been stretched to 2000x2000px, which causes the logo's feathered edges to show when you zoom in. However, this is not a problem in any other smaller resolutions - which is the purpose of the T2CR's symbols. (For example, Coingecko, Uniswap...) After browsing the project's resources, there is no better alternative icon to be found. For this reason, and the ones above, I vote YES on this case.

Evidence #9:

Accept the Submission This symbol is of high enough quality to be accepted in the T2CR. 1. The symbol will be used in small to medium-sized format only, which makes these edges invisible. 2. The dark symbol will only be used on a light background, so any edges will be assured to be invisible for an extra reason 3. The edges are only visible on the stretched out version. Refer to Crypto.com @ T2CR. It has been registered and is even blurry in medium size. Why has it been accepted? Because the symbol will be used in tiny format only. https://tokens.kleros.io/token/0xa5938eb541a0183eb63fb097462f911e4576ee3b012c9c894e94c7263d8bf3e8 These reasons and the provided evidence should suffice for any juror to accept this token in the T2CR.

Evidence #10:

As listing rules said ➤The token symbol should be a transparent PNG of at least 128x128px and at most 2500x2500px. It should not weight more than 1MB. It should be centered and take most of the space available in the image. It should not include the project or token name unless the symbol always includes it. 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.

Evidence #11:

Token challenge Image is poorly cut. Edges around the logo.
Check this Case on Kleros Resolve