Dispute #449

Court Start Date Dispute Status Current Period Time remaining End Date
Non-Technical 2020-10-29 13:22 Already Ruled Execution Already Ruled 2020-11-07 13:37
Arbitrable Creator
Tokens

Unique Votes in all the rounds

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
0 2 0 1

Round 0

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
0 2 0 1
Round 0 Vote Casting Date
Pending
No 2020-11-03 16:44
No 2020-11-03 15:57

Evidences

Evidences provided by Vagarish

Evidence #1:

Again false claims by requester 1. What I wanted to say was that the logos on Twitter, LinkedIn, and Facebook do not exactly match. They are all different variations, with different colors, but look somewhat the same. That is not enough though, because the fact remains that they are NOT the same. 2. Etherscan, GitHub, and the T2CR, use the most commonly used ICH token symbol. There is no other token symbol which is used more frequently, as the requester is incorrectly claiming. In my previous evidence pdf file, you can clearly see that each of the logos he refers to, are NOT the same. There is ZERO consistency amongst the sources he stated. Don't belief his lies, check the facts. There is NO logo which appears 5 times in official sources, this is a blatant lie, just check for yourself. 3. Why would we remove a dead project from the TCR? There is no such policy. In fact, the policy states that tokens shouldn't be denied listing based on token activity.

Evidence #2:

Challenger is contradicting himself and speculating without evidence The challenger earlier said: "Twitter, LinkedIn, AND Facebook, all have a different colored variation of the token symbol listed in the T2CR, but for the rest it's the same." Please notice how the challenger first claimed that Twitter, LinkedIn, AND Facebook all have the same logo with different colored variations, but now the challenger is conveniently claiming they are different logos. 1. I provided a logo that appears 5 times in official sources (CoinGecko, GitHub, Medium, YouTube, Telegram). Challenger keeps speculating that it is the project logo with no evidence. 2. I provided another logo that appears 3 times in official sources (Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook). These official sources have the same logo with different colored variations as the challenger admitted initially. 3. Why should we keep a dead project in T2CR? CoinGecko removed this token from its search results. The project was abandoned by its owners and it is not functional. The official project website was shut down 1.5 years ago: https://icostart.ch The last snapshot of the project website is from May 2019: https://web.archive.org/web/20190601000000*/https://icostart.ch

Evidence #3:

Proof of requester's false evidence In the attached pdf file can find the details. The most commonly used token symbol is actually the logo which was submitted AND accepted to the T2CR. The requester is confusing the project logo with the token symbol. The token symbol is the logo of the token, and not the logo of the project itself.

Evidence #4:

I am simply stating the facts I am simply stating the facts and the challenger is the one who is trying to fool others. Here are my replies to the challenger's last baseless claims: 1. If you look at the pdf I attached, I provided 8 links from official sources along with the last GitHub link. 5 of these links use one logo and 3 of these links use another logo and they are both different than the logo currently listed in T2CR. 2. The challenger claimed earlier that Twitter, LinkedIn, AND Facebook, all have the same logo with different colored variations. But now the challenger is claiming that all my 8 links including Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook use different logos. The challenger is clearly contradicting himself to save the situation. I also would like to point out that the project's website has not been working for a long time: https://icostart.ch So, I have trouble understanding the motivation behind challenger's attempts.

Evidence #5:

Requester is providing false evidence Don't let the requester fool you, check the facts, he is clearly trying to sway the jurors by providing false information. What is needed for the T2CR is the most commonly used token symbol, which obviously is the token symbol which is already correctly listed in the T2CR, but also on Etherscan and on the official ICH GitHub. His "list" of 8 links is are all using different logos, so it's not a list of 8 websites which consistently use the same logo. Furthermore, he provided some irrelevant sources, like ICOS BULL. Also he is referring to project logos, which include a lot of text. The image listed in the T2CR is the correct TOKEN SYMBOL, and thus this token SHOULD NOT be removed from the T2CR.

Evidence #6:

Challenger's 2 links vs Requester's 8 links from official sources The challenger is trying to save the situation by changing his challenge from token activity to the logo after seeing my evidence. The challenger's claims are all incorrect. For the logo, the challenger was only able to provide 2 links compared to the 8 links I provided earlier from official sources. This clearly indicates the logo currently listed in T2CR is not the most commonly used logo. The challenger is also wrong about the logos in Twitter, LinkedIn, and Facebook. These logos are obviously not the same as the logo listed in T2CR. These logos are simple two-colored logos whereas the logo in T2CR is multi-colored and looks like a circuit board. Challenger's claims are in violation with jurisprudence and MATH, 0xBitcoin, XIO, KARMA, COL precedents prove that. Therefore, the current ICH listing should be removed from T2CR due to its incorrect logo.

Evidence #7:

T2CR image is the most commonly used token symbol The requester is mistaken about the correct logo, he is confusing the project logo with the token symbol. The ICH token symbol accepted in the TCR has always been the correct token symbol. You can find the correct token symbol on Etherscan (https://etherscan.io/token/0x330839EF82D34801bd96e75a4Ee778ac56Fa1ED8) and on the official ICOStart (ICH) GitHub as their profile picture (https://github.com/ICOStart). Twitter, LinkedIn, AND Facebook, all have a different colored variation of the token symbol listed in the T2CR, but for the rest it's the same. The token symbol of this submission is the most commonly used token symbol, thus this removal request is invalid, and should be rejected as a result.

Evidence #8:

The current listing simply does not use the correct logo The challenger is wrong. This removal request was not made due to token creation date, token swap status, use case or token activity. The removal request is based on the fact that the current ICH listing in T2CR does not use the correct logo. MATH, 0xBitcoin, XIO, KARMA, COL precedents show that a successful T2CR submission requires the most commonly used logo as the correct logo. None of the following official sources use the logo that is in the T2CR's current ICH listing and hence ICH should be removed from T2CR: * CoinGecko: https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/icostart * Medium: https://medium.com/@icostart.ch * Telegram: https://t.me/ICOStartNews * YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCk7OF6AY5EjEcof-9hKb44A * Twitter: https://twitter.com/IcoStart_ch * Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icostart/ * LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/icostart/ * ICOs Bull: https://icosbull.com/eng/ico/icostart

Evidence #9:

Token challenge ➤Requests are not to be denied listing based on token creation date, token swap status (with non-ethereum chains), use case or token activity.
Check this Case on Kleros Resolve