Dispute #408

Court Start Date Dispute Status Current Period Time remaining End Date
Non-Technical 2020-09-30 12:10 Already Ruled Execution Already Ruled 2020-10-12 10:57
Arbitrable Creator
Tokens

Unique Votes in all the rounds

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
2 6 0 0

Round 0

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
0 3 0 0
Round 0 Vote Casting Date
No 2020-10-03 13:37
No 2020-10-02 20:11
No 2020-10-02 20:10

Round 1

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
2 5 0 0
Round 1 Vote Casting Date
No 2020-10-08 17:05
No 2020-10-08 17:05
No 2020-10-08 17:05
Yes 2020-10-08 16:37
Yes 2020-10-05 17:22
No 2020-10-08 19:39
No 2020-10-08 22:44

Evidences

Evidences provided by Vagarish

Evidence #1:

Last answer from "Accept submission" side Check attached pdf. No further replies will be given by this third-party, as gas costs have been piling up and information should not become saturated.

Evidence #2:

REBASE final ruling: respect official brand style No appeal funding was made for the REBASE dispute, meaning that after 1 appeal the jury members ruled to follow branding style as dictated by the project owners. This is in line with the Policy: ➤ Names should be treated like brand names (spelling wise). This means that the correct spelling is dictated by the project owners, unless consensus forms around a different spelling. As there is no other consensus, since GROWTH DeFi and Growth DeFi are both used by external sources, it means that the correct spelling should be dictated by the project owners. GROWTH DeFi is used by the team on their media channels, on the official website, and in their whitepaper. Thus, we can conclude that GROWTH DeFi is the correct spelling for this submission.

Evidence #3:

➤ Names should be treated like brand names The brand name is GROWTH DeFi, as can be seen on their official website, Twitter, and whitepaper. The attached pdf includes responses to arguments/questions from the appealing party.

Evidence #4:

"Respect Branding" is not a valid reason for rejection (Note: Read in court.kleros to be able to read line breaks) [[Reply to 1st]] >The branding name from the official is definitely GROWTH DeFi. The name used on the official website, in their whitepaper, on their twitter (...) "GROWTH DeFi". /////// This is known. Twitter handle is @GrowthDefi, though, so it's not that clear crystal. >while also by various coin trackers ////// Which ones apart from CoinGecko that are not obscurely irrelevant? Cite sources. > In the GROWTH DeFi whitepaper, there are 15 mentions of "GROWTH" (in that letter exact casing). This project is brand new, since September 2020, and only has around 985 followers on Twitter and 1073 members in their Telegram channel. For this reason, we should respect their brand style, like CoinGecko does. //////// Why should we "respect their brand style"? That is not in the policy. Policy claims submission should respect the official spelling, nothing else. If "must respect brand style" is not in Policy, then the token is filtered out due to subjective opinion. [[Reply to 2nd]] >The use of the name is divided (although there is a majority by GROWTH DeFi) and in that case the name given by the creators must prevail. The token must be rejected ////// What is the evidence for a majority by GROWTH DeFi? I observed the opposite. [[Reply to 3rd]] >This case is similar to the REBASE case, both disputes are regarding letter casing. The jury of the REBASE case just ruled to follow the project's official branding style. As follows, the jury of this case should follow the ruling of the REBASE case. NOTE: appeals are still possible in the REBASE case, as such, the decision is not final yet. The jurors however ruled convincingly, 5 against 0, in the appeal. ///////// Case Law is not proper arbiter work, as explained in 2nd pdf. So "should follow the ruling of the REBASE case" is not justified. ----------------------------- About brand name, if you check the Telegram group they have had, as direct witnesses, small observations on the case, claimed that the casing does not really matter, and changed Telegram group name to "Growth DeFi". If the community are uncertain themselves about the capitalization of the token and tend to use the natural "Growth" casing that differs from the official, does that mean such tokens will not be allowed to enter TCR? A similar case could be made if this was submitted as "GROWTH DeFi" then, as users mostly use "Growth" or "GRO" when referring to it. Dev claimed (screenshot of Telegram group attached) "Growth is more formal", so maybe it is ideal to list it as it is listed in highly frequented sites such as coinmarketcap or Uniswap.

Evidence #5:

Similarities with REBASE case This case is similar to the REBASE case, both disputes are regarding letter casing. The jury of the REBASE case just ruled to follow the project's official branding style. As follows, the jury of this case should follow the ruling of the REBASE case. NOTE: appeals are still possible in the REBASE case, as such, the decision is not final yet. The jurors however ruled convincingly, 5 against 0, in the appeal.

Evidence #6:

The token should be rejected The use of the name is divided (although there is a majority by GROWTH DeFi) and in that case the name given by the creators must prevail. The token must be rejected

Evidence #7:

Respect Branding of GROWTH DeFi team The branding name from the official is definitely GROWTH DeFi. The name used on the official website, in their whitepaper, on their twitter, while also by various coin trackers, is "GROWTH DeFi". In the GROWTH DeFi whitepaper, there are 15 mentions of "GROWTH" (in that letter exact casing). This project is brand new, since September 2020, and only has around 985 followers on Twitter and 1073 members in their Telegram channel. For this reason, we should respect their brand style, like CoinGecko does.

Evidence #8:

Second document This is a four page document explaining three points in detail. I suggest the jurors to read it carefully and verify its points.

Evidence #9:

Letter casing/capitalization matters too Although not explicitly stated in the guidelines, letter casing in fact does matter for TCR submissions. EncrypGen, OVCODE, SpankChain, Zebi, DAOstack and (somewhat) Kush Finance all got rejected because of incorrect capitalization. It's common sense to not only provide the correct and most commonly used spelling, but also letter casing. This submission was correctly ruled by rejecting it, no appeal is needed.

Evidence #10:

Against "Different Spelling" pdf Having posted an ugly chunk of text is part of the learning process. I'm sorry for that. This is a pdf with my previous arguments in an easier to read format.

Evidence #11:

Against the "Different Spelling" argument My two cents on 408 "Growth DeFi" GRO case: https://tokens.kleros.io/token/0xcb0a8895520af1833963647f4b0bf679f9c4f18dbdf1f943641279bb5fea8a57 "Spelling wise" is not the same as "Capitalization wise". Growth and GROWTH have NO different spelling. They have different capitalization. Generally agreed meaning of "spelling": https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/26199/is-incorrect-capitalization-considered-a-spelling-error#:~:text=Your%20question%20was%2C%22%20Is%20it,don't%20change%20its%20spelling. I suggest changing the policies pdf if this is not intended, but at the moment, as spelling is the same in submission, official and accepted, you cannot summon the spelling clause to challenge this submission. You cannot reinterpret that clause either as also possibly referring to capitalization as it states "(spelling wise)". Spelling is mentioned three times and the clause does not leave any place for capitalization ambiguity. To the challengers: You're left to either attack the semantics of "spelling", or find another different argument to successfully challenge the submission. Counter-counter-argument for "This definition of spelling is way too precise for what was intended in the document": Case 302 had a similar fight, and in the end, analytic precise semantics won over possible intended meanings. I urge the jurors to be smart as humans, but as precise and objective as computers. Counter-counter-argument for "This definition of spelling is made up, niche, or not generally accepted as true": Please provide a standarized definition for 'spelling' that includes capitalization. I will paste extra links that provide further insight. https://painintheenglish.com/case/2235 https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/spelling I've verified all the other policies, but will not submit arguments or evidence unless they are attacked.

Evidence #12:

Not always true Its token name in Etherscan is not all caps and same with its listing in Coinmarketcap

Evidence #13:

Token challenge ➤ Names should be treated like brand names (spelling wise). This means that the correct spelling is dictated by the project owners, unless consensus forms around a different spelling. Official media channels and a couple of external sources use the spelling GROWTH DeFi.
Check this Case on Kleros Resolve