Dispute #436

Court Start Date Dispute Status Current Period Time remaining End Date
Non-Technical 2020-10-20 19:54 Already Ruled Execution Already Ruled 2020-11-08 21:37
Arbitrable Creator

Unique Votes in all the rounds

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
4 8 0 0

Round 0

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
1 2 0 0
Round 0 Vote Casting Date
Yes 2020-10-25 16:16
No 2020-10-23 11:15
No 2020-10-23 11:37

Round 1

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
5 2 0 0
Round 1 Vote Casting Date
Yes 2020-10-30 16:30
Yes 2020-10-29 10:24
No 2020-10-27 12:58
No 2020-10-27 12:58
Yes 2020-10-27 13:32
Yes 2020-10-27 13:32
Yes 2020-10-27 13:32

Round 2

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
1 14 0 0
Round 2 Vote Casting Date
No 2020-11-05 09:26
No 2020-11-03 01:06
No 2020-11-02 13:38
Yes 2020-11-02 12:31
No 2020-11-05 06:45
No 2020-11-05 06:45
No 2020-11-02 22:29
No 2020-11-02 22:29
No 2020-11-02 22:29
No 2020-11-02 22:29
No 2020-11-05 05:40
No 2020-11-03 22:18
No 2020-11-04 02:22
No 2020-11-04 02:22
No 2020-11-04 02:22


Evidences provided by Vagarish

Evidence #1:

A thank you to honest actors I want to thank the appeal funders (and the jurors who voted NO during any round) for seeing through all be personal attacks, false allegations, and other noise, during this dispute. Evading the discussion about the substance of this case did not work out for the requester. Good job all, let's keep Kleros a fair place, for fair dispute resolution.

Evidence #2:

Founder clearly lost his way Founder conveniently ignores the corruptness of this challenger/juror. He clearly lost his vision of decentralized justice. This project is on a path to failure since personal profit has become its number one priority.

Evidence #3:

Last round Founder opinion During the previous round, with one of the jurors of the first round, we asked to the project members about the different logos directly to their twitter account. The answer was already posted as evidence, supporting that the correct logo it's with a dark background because the transparent logo it's the logo of their exchange. The submitter could not refute that evidence, which supports the words of the challenger about why the most common (and correct) logo it's with a dark background. Instead of focusing in the fact, the submitter just want to attack the challenger because of it's lackiness of arguments to support the logo uploaded. I hope the jurors follow the facts, instead of the personal attacks.

Evidence #4:

Challenger is corrupt and cannot be trusted I would like to point out to everyone that challenger is also the juror in this dispute. The challenger has several whale juror accounts and keeps voting in his own disputes. This is ethically very wrong and also against the decentralized vision of Kleros. The challenger's actions prove that he is not interested in justice and the well-being of Kleros/T2CR. You can see that he has been both challenger and juror in disputes 454, 392, 385, 184, 146, 136, 115 and he voted in all those disputes: http://kleroscan.com/juror/0x4a2c5a0Af8b29cD5Fd8Eb1d02a83150A3ee10488 Given the challenger's corruptness and distaste for justice, the evidence he provided cannot be trusted.

Evidence #5:

Try to win the case with arguments, not personal attacks... Making it personal, doxing me, and attacking me won't help you in your case. The fact remains, that at the time of the challenge, the submitted logo DID NOT match the most commonly used Switch logo. Exactly for that reason, the jurors in the first round correctly rejected this submission. I will, once again, present a list of sources, which all used a logo consisting of a dark circle, instead of a transparent one. 3 of the biggest coin trackers AND ALL of the official Switch sources, consistently used the same dark circled logo. Therefore, it's crystal clear that the logo submitted to the T2CR was NOT the most commonly used logo. 1. CoinMarketCap, 2. CoinGecko, 3. Coinbase 3. Switch's Twitter, 4. Switch's Telegram, 5. Switch's Medium, 6. Switch's website, 7. Switch's Instagram. In my previous evidence pdf file you can find a list of some smaller coin trackers, which also consistently use another logo than was submitted by the requester. The requester and the 2 times appeal funder are both unable to give proper evidence, supporting their side of this dispute. Instead, their strategy is argumentum ad hominem. They accuse me of being a dictator and being a secret whale juror. Anyone who knows me, knows that I challenge everything from my own wallet, and know that I am not a whale juror. What I hold in my wallet is all I have. And even if I would have more PNK, that's 100% irrelevant to mention. Stop your personal crusade, it's baseless. I am a long time and active community member, which includes submitting and challenging too. I simply follow the rules of the T2CR policy and existing jurisprudence. Btw, I haven't even funded this 2nd appeal myself, so this shows third-party support for rejecting this submission. Dear jury members of the 2nd appeal round, don't be fooled by the requester's side ad hominem tactics. This submission was in clear violation when it was submitted, and should be rejected as a result.

Evidence #6:

This token should not be accepted in its present form simply because it is not the correct one We are here for making the token registry as accurate as possible. Independently some requesters' supporters are trying to raise suspicions about the actions of the challengers, this token should not be accepted in its present form simply because it is not the correct one. As can be seen in attached evidence, Switch has confirmed that the presented logo corresponds to SwitchDex (the exchange platform), while that with the black background is the correct token logo. That's why the most common logo and correct for the token is the one with black background.Please see the attachment

Evidence #7:

Challenger is misinterpreting intent and acting in bad faith The intent of the platform is to have accurate and up to date listings with reasonably correct tokens/logos, not to be caught up in legalism and for challengers to win quick $ with cheeky "gotcha"s. Even if challenger was correct on some technicality from a certain perspective at time of listing, the important outcome is whether the token should be listed now or not, not whether the challenger had a point and deserved to win money. Siding with the challenger here would be negative for the ecosystem and will lead to the deterioration of the platform. I suspect challenger may even own a wallet with high stakes as a juror in the court and hope to favour his own frivolous challenges in this way (not that there is anything currently disallowing this, as discussed in previous evidence and on Kleros Telegram). As a concerned community member, I would strongly encourage requester to be funded and challenger to be voted against to discourage both the challenger and any future users who would seek to deteriorate this platform with such an unconstructive approach.

Evidence #8:

Lets Crowdfund Requester Dear all let's crowdfund requesters side, show your support by contributing, small or big, does not matter, I am going to complete whats missing. The next round will be ours too! O=('-'Q)

Evidence #9:

The Prosecutor Identity is Irrelevant It is perfectly fine if someone decides to make it their full time job to scrutinize and challenge submissions that violate listing criteria. In fact, it is expected, necessary and desirable that there be prosecutors constantly verifying submissions for any TCR to remain legit. The arbitrator cannot judge if no one sends cases to court. Challenging a lot of submissions does not make the anyone a dictator because the challenger must always ground their claims. If the law is unfair it can be updated, but the challenger will not win if they do not ground their claims.

Evidence #10:

Ad Hominem 0x4a2c...0488 Watch out for the challenger, 0x4a2c...0488, who goes by the name of Robbert on Telegram. He is a fantasist and dictator, who has challenged over 30 submissions in the last three months. His challenges are always highly subjective and he almost never refers to the policy, but to "jurisprudence" instead. When it seems like he will lose, he will starts ranting and spamming the evidence section to sway jurors, much like he did here. This submission is obviously perfectly fine. It complies fully with the T2CR policy and is consistent with other resources online. Yet, he decided to appeal it for another round. What should jurors care about: the quality of the T2CR submissions, or the personal profit and interest of this challenger? End this nonsense and keep the Kleros Token list an efficient system.

Evidence #11:

Failure to respond to any of the challenger's claims against listing The appeal funder is unable to refute any of my claims for why this submission was challenged. The presented arguments against listing this submission clearly showed that it was in violation with jurisprudence, and should be rejected as a result. The appeal funder purposely ignored all of the arguments made by the challenging party, because he was unable to give a proper response to them. Instead, he just simply repeated the same arguments again, which I all refuted already earlier in this dispute. This inability to respond to any of the challenger's arguments, shows that the requesting side CAN NOT refute the claims made against listing this submission. The fact remains that not 1 coin tracker, nor any of the official Switch media channels, were using the logo which was submitted to the T2CR. All of these sources consistently showed the correct Switch token symbol, which is a dark circle with two crossing arrows inside (from which one is white). This token symbol was the most commonly used token symbol at the time of the challenge, during the complete evidence and voting period, and even until the very last moment of the funding period. This submission was in violation when it was submitted to the T2CR, thus it should be rejected at this moment in time. For that reason, the jurors of the first round voted AGAINST listing this submission. The evidence presented during the initial evidence phase clearly indicated that Switch was in violation with jurisprudence, and thus had to be rejected. The requester, nor any other third party, was able to provide any significant evidence showing that this submission complied to the T2CR standards. Dear remaining juror of this first appeal round, but also the jury members of the next appeal round, I want to remind you of the fact that this submission is in clear violation with jurisprudence. According to strong precedents, the most commonly used token symbol should be used for T2CR submissions. Switch's most commonly used token symbol (see attached file) is evidently different from what was submitted to the T2CR, and therefore this submission should clearly be rejected. Don't be fooled by the (evading) tactic used by the appeal funder. Rule in accordance with the facts, and the fact remains that another logo was submitted to the T2CR, than Switch's most commonly used token symbol. Therefore, I want to urge the remaining juror and the coming jurors to vote NO.

Evidence #12:

Response to "Juror 2 Opinion" I did not mix website's background colours with the token logo color, so I don't know why you think so. 1. CoinMarketCap and CoinGecko both have a white background, even though the displayed Switch logo was a dark circle, thus it has nothing to do with the website's background color. 2. The same goes for Twitter, as you can see the image is a dark circle, even though Twitter's background is white (https://twitter.com/SwitchAg/photo). 3. This is also the case for Medium website, white background, but a dark circle logo (https://medium.com/@switchag). 4. Instagram has a white background, but logo is dark (https://www.instagram.com/switch.ag/). 5. On Telegram the logo is also dark (https://t.me/ethershiftco). All those sources displayed a dark circle as logo, not transparent, as such the website's background is completely irrelevant. Did you even read through my evidence? Because if you did, you would have seen that I refuted all the claims made by the appealing party. I DID NOT mix/confuse the logo with the website's background, as all those sources do not even have a dark background, but a dark logo was displayed anyways.

Evidence #13:

Response to "Juror Opinion" Dear juror/appeal funder, you are repeating the same arguments, as you already posted earlier today. I already refuted all your arguments in my previous post, so there is no reason to repeat your arguments again. Did you read my pdf file at all? Because you seem to ignore all my arguments, and decide to not react on them at all. At the time of the challenge, but also during the whole first round + most part of the appeal funding phase, CoinMarketCap and CoinGecko displayed the dark circle Switch token symbol, the same logo as is displayed on Switch's Twitter, Medium, Telegram, Instagram and website. Don't try to fool the jurors by completely ignoring my arguments, and act as if CMC and CoinGecko always had this transparent logo. Yesterday they still had the dark logo, and you know that too. Don't try to obscure the facts by not responding to my arguments by repeating the same arguments that you already made earlier today.

Evidence #14:

Juror 2 Opinion The challenger mixed website's background colours with the token logo color. I voted in favor of the requester as I believe they are right here.

Evidence #15:

Juror Opinion Please see attached file to understand why the requester is right.

Evidence #16:

Submission was in violation at the time of submission. The first round juror & appeal funder claims that I confused the symbol with website backgrounds, which is not true. He also incorrectly claims that I claimed that the token symbol on CoinGecko has a white background, this is also not true. In the attached evidence file you can read the truth. Also you will find information why this submission should not be listed.

Evidence #17:

Challenger is Confusing the Symbol with Website Backgrounds Challenger is confusing the symbol with website backgrounds. For example, the challenger claimed CoinGecko is displaying a symbol with a white background, however, the symbol is transparent and the white background belongs to the website. See screenshot. Each website uses different backgrounds (white on CoinGecko, dark purple on Switch.ag, etc.), which is normal and this is not a part of the symbol. Note: To reproduce, in Chrome, right-click to symbol and click inspect.

Evidence #18:

Juror Opinion The logo is absolutely OK. I'm voting in favor of requester despite it is certain that I'm going to be the minority. Let's see what happens in the next round.

Evidence #19:

"Please ensure the logo is a transparent high resolution PNG." Dear jurors, please see my attached additional evidence where the instructions of the "Submit Token" dialog box clearly say: "Please ensure the logo is a transparent high resolution PNG." Challenger's claims violate T2CR listing criteria and token submission instructions about transparent logos. This submission satisfies all listing criteria and token submission instructions and should therefore be accepted into T2CR.

Evidence #20:

Challenger's claims are in violation with listing criteria and jurisprudence The listing criteria is as clear as day: "The token symbol should be a transparent PNG". Challenger is making up rules and trying to confuse jury members. Transparent logos are crucial for good UI/UX in websites/apps and developers/designers care greatly about them. The listing criteria says the logo needs to be a transparent PNG for a reason. This is just so that any website or app in any device, which uses T2CR, can display the logo easily with their own background color. Challenger is misinterpreting the rule and accepting his challenge will negatively affect the adoption of T2CR in the long-term. Challenger's claims are in violation with listing criteria and jurisprudence. This submission satisfies all listing criteria and should be accepted into T2CR.

Evidence #21:

In violation with jurisprudence The rule that the token symbol should be transparent exists to rule out submissions where the most commonly used logo is transparent, but were submitted with a white background instead. Switch's logo is either a dark blue circle, or transparent, but displayed on a dark blue background. You can see this on their website, Twitter, Telegram, Medium, Instagram, but also by coin trackers, such as CoinGecko and CoinMarketCap. Jurisprudence dictates that the most commonly used logo should be used for T2CR submissions, thus it should be rejected.

Evidence #22:

Transparent logo is commonly used I am attaching evidence that the requester's transparent logo can be seen in the official sources and it is also commonly used. The challenger’s claim contradicts with the listing criteria. This submission satisfies all listing criteria and should be accepted into T2CR.

Evidence #23:

The token symbol should be a transparent PNG The listing criteria clearly says: "The token symbol should be a transparent PNG" and it does not mention any exception for the most commonly used logo. So, if there is a transparent logo for the token, it must be submitted to comply fully with the rules. The transparent logo can be seen on GitHub and the official project website: * https://raw.githubusercontent.com/trustwallet/assets/master/blockchains/ethereum/assets/0xD6a55C63865AffD67E2FB9f284F87b7a9E5FF3bD/logo.png * https://switch.ag

Evidence #24:

Token challenge Most commonly used logo is not transparent. See CMC, CoinGecko, https://twitter.com/switchag, https://t.me/joinchat/HGSP7kumphGT85h1DC79IQ
Check this Case on Kleros Resolve