Dispute #453

Court Start Date Dispute Status Current Period Time remaining End Date
Non-Technical 2020-10-31 19:21 Already Ruled Execution Already Ruled 2020-11-09 19:47
Arbitrable Creator
Tokens

Unique Votes in all the rounds

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
0 1 0 2

Round 0

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
0 1 0 2
Round 0 Vote Casting Date
Pending
No 2020-11-05 21:55
Pending

Evidences

Evidences provided by Vagarish

Evidence #1:

How can my arguments be in violation with jurisprudence? xD This submission wasn't challenged for incorrect name, but for incorrect ticker, so I don't understand why you are saying that my arguments are invalid. Jurisprudence for using the most commonly used name is not valid for the ticker, that's something else. If there would be any jurisprudence that the ticker spelling of CoinMarketCap and CoinGecko should be followed, then why are there already more than 40 tokens with non-capitalized tickers in the T2CR, while CMC and CG always use fully capitalized. But this is even irrelevant, as official sources + Etherscan use aENJ as the ticker. Because of all the above, this submission should obviously be rejected. For what reason are you posting about the WOO case here btw? If you want to provide evidence for that case, post it on the WOO dispute, not here. But now that you posted it here anyways, let me refute it. Go look up all of those "Network" tokens you listed on CMC, CG and Etherscan. Note how the tokens with "Network" in their names in the T2CR, also appear on CMC, CG, and Etherscan like that (with "Network" in the name). The only precedent that exists, is that the most commonly used name should be used. There is no such thing as a precedent for always using the word "Network" for the T2CR, as the requester is trying to argue.

Evidence #2:

Challenger's arguments are in violation with jurisprudence Jurisprudence shows that T2CR prefers the most commonly used over consistent, so challenger's arguments are not valid. For example, please see how the same challenger is clearly contradicting himself in the recent WOO submission by saying that T2CR should use the most commonly used name: https://tokens.kleros.io/token/0xfd32391d6d2f11de0eafc124e3255cacab94bf24d12233037fafa389d272cf0a According to his arguments here, the WOO submission is correct because the consistent thing to do is adding the "Network" word to the token name. Please see all these successful submissions with the "Network" word in them. * Loom Network * Kyber Network * OneRoot Network * FintruX Network * Ripio Credit Network * Origami Network * Debitum Network * Jibrel Network * LTO Network * Morpheus.Network * GoNetwork * Zenswap Network * Meridian Network * Darwinia Network * Askobar Network * Robonomics Network * Matic Network * Pamp Network * pNetwork * VorteX Network * DOS Network * Skrumble Network * Aludra Network * RAIN Network Challenger's arguments are in violation with jurisprudence. This submission satisfies all listing criteria and should be accepted into T2CR.

Evidence #3:

Clear violation of jurisprudence 1. Stop with this nonsense of falsely accusing me of owning multiple whale jurors. These are baseless accusations and only show bad intent. I only own one wallet with PNK, and it's this one. Don't try to sway jurors by accusing me of random shit, this won't help your case, and it's ugly behavior. Now lets continue with the arguments 2. If it is a de facto standard to always capitalize tickers, then why are there a large amount of submissions with non-capitalized tickers in the T2CR? In fact, there is a strong precedent, according to which official ticker capitalization should be used for the T2CR. I will provide a non-exhaustive list of all those submissions: * 9 Compound cTokens, * 15 Aave aTokens (which have temporarily been removed from the T2CR for incorrect names, it was for instance aETH (aETH), while it should be Aave ETH (aETH), * 3 renTokens (renBTC, renBCH, and renZEC), * 2 Synthetix sTokens (sETH and sBTC) - (SBTC even got rejected for incorrect ticker usage) - , * 9 other tokens (RFuel, wNXM, rDAI, bCrv, 0xBTC, vBTC, plDai, LYXe, and mUSD). That's at least 38 submissions in total, all using non-capitalized letters in their tickers. Obviously, the standard for the T2CR is to use official ticker capitalization. Etherscan and Uniswap also follow these standards, but CoinMarketCap and CoinGecko do not. The requester can make up all the arguments he wants, but the evidence speaks for itself. Jurisprudence clearly shows that tickers should be treated the same as brand names, so spelling wise we should follow the official way of writing. For this reason, I also decided to remove Compound UNI (CUNI) for incorrect ticker capitalization, challenge my removal request if you think CUNI is correct :) Attached is screenshot from https://aave.com/aTokens, clearly stating the official ticker spelling. 3. Besides providing a big list of irrelevant sources (yes they are irrelevant, because they hold no authority and the website page views are negligible), the requester also included some incorrect information in it. According to him, AENJ is the ticker on Uniswap, while in reality, they also use aENJ. All the official Aave sources, Etherscan, and Uniswap consistently use aENJ as a ticker, which is also the standard in the T2CR. The Kleros T2CR should not only remain consistent with itself (note all of the 38 submissions with partly non-capitalized tickers), but also with official sources, while also with Etherscan and Uniswap. 4. TL;DR: Not only is aENJ is most commonly used spelling, it is also the official one. Therefore I ask the jury members in this case, but also the Aave REN and Aave YFI case, to vote NO, allowing the T2CR to remain consistent with itself and with relevant and official sources.

Evidence #4:

T2CR favors the most commonly used one as opposed to the consistent one 1. The challenger's argument of consistency is not valid as consistency is neither mentioned in the listing criteria nor applied in T2CR. For example, some successful submissions omit "Token" from the name and some other successful submissions include it. Jurisprudence shows that T2CR favors the most commonly used one as opposed to the consistent one. I already showed that the most commonly used ticker is AENJ. 2. The listing criteria specifically refers to token names, not tickers: "Names should be treated like brand names (spelling wise)". 3. The challenger said: "The requester put together a list of coin trackers, which should almost all ignored, as they are not relevant at all". The challenger shows clear disrespect for justice and T2CR by casually suggesting that the requester's evidence of most commonly used ticker should be ignored. 4. The challenger said: "Only CoinMarketCap and CoinGecko are relevant, and they capitalize their tickers by default". Yes, that is because capitalizing tickers is the de facto standard and T2CR should follow standards. Following this standard is important so that users can distinguish a token's ticker from its name easily. 5. I am not acting as a juror in Kleros courts. However, 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

Evidence #5:

Response to requester Requester submitted 69 tokens in the last 22 days, but he is accusing me (the challenger) of creating a centralized list. All I am doing is proper due diligence, which you unfortunately failed to do on these 3 submissions. The T2CR is a high-quality and consistent curated list of tokens, for this to achieve, we actually need to stay consistent. Everyone is indeed welcome to participate in the T2CR, but submissions should be according with the policy and jurisprudence. You have been farming a lot of PNK with your 69 submissions, so don't accuse me of creating my own centralized list. Of course I will challenge all 3 of your incorrect submissions, that's just logical. The correct ticker spelling shouldn't be AENJ, AREN, and AYFI, but aENJ, aREN, and aYFI. Just how they are listed on Etherscan, Uniswap and on the official Aave website (https://aave.com/aTokens).

Evidence #6:

Official and correct ticker is aENJ My claims are not baseless at all. There is a clear jurisprudence regarding name and ticker spelling/letter capitalization. This jurisprudence was partly formed due to the following policy rule: "➤ 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." The requester put together a list of coin trackers, which should almost all ignored, as they are not relevant at all. Only CoinMarketCap and CoinGecko are relevant, and they capitalize their tickers by default. But that's not how we list tokens in the T2CR. For the T2CR, we follow the official letter capitalization, so aENJ, and not AENJ (https://aave.com/static/media/aENJ.ed76293b.svg). The correct spelling of the ticker can be found in the token contract on Etherscan, which correctly uses the capitalization as defined by the Aave project owners, aENJ(https://etherscan.io/token/0x712DB54daA836B53Ef1EcBb9c6ba3b9Efb073F40). Also Uniswap uses aENJ as it's ticker. This precedent of using tickers like aETH, can be seen from the following list of tokens which all follow the official letter capitalization, even though CMC and CoinGecko use ALL CAPS BY DEFAULT. All of the Compound tokens (cETH, cDAI, cUSDT, etc), all of the Ren token (RenBTC, RenZEC, RenBCH), all of the Synthetix tokens (sBTC, sETH), Strudel Finance BTC (vBTC), Pool Dai (plDai), LUKSO (LYXe), mStable USD (mUSD), and most importantly, all of the Aave tokens (aETH, aDAI, aUSDT, etc), as how they were accepted to the T2CR, before they were removed for incorrect name usage. They were listed as aETH (aETH), instead of Aave ETH (aETH). To remain consistent, the jurors should reject this submission from the T2CR, after which Aave ENJ can be resubmitted with aENJ as its ticker.

Evidence #7:

T2CR turning into the challenger's own centralized list I would like to point out that the challenger is a serial challenger who challenged 3 of my submissions (AENJ, AREN, AYFI) with the same reason which is nowhere in the listing criteria. The ticker I used is also the most commonly used ticker. This submission satisfies all listing criteria and should therefore be accepted into T2CR. Every requester should feel welcome to participate in T2CR as long as their submission satisfies all listing criteria. This will ensure T2CR stays an efficient decentralized system and does not turn into the challenger's own centralized list.

Evidence #8:

This submission satisfies all listing criteria The challenger's claim is baseless: 1. Firstly, there is no rule about the casing of tickers in the listing criteria. It is a de facto standard that letters in a ticker are all uppercase. Following the standard is important because this makes it easy to distinguish a token's ticker from its name. 2. Secondly, this submission uses the most commonly used ticker for the token. You can verify this by visiting these links: * CoinMarketCap: https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/aave-enj/ * CoinGecko: https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/aave-enj * LiveCoinWatch: https://www.livecoinwatch.com/price/AaveENJ-AENJ * Cryptofolio: https://cryptfolio.com/currencies/aenj * CoinMarketCal: https://coinmarketcal.com/en/coin/aave-enj * Uniswap: https://app.uniswap.org/#/swap?inputCurrency=0x3a3a65aab0dd2a17e3f1947ba16138cd37d08c04 * RatesNinja: https://rates.ninja/cryptocurrency/aave-enj * CoinCodex: https://coincodex.com/crypto/aave-enj/exchanges/ * NewsBTC: https://www.newsbtc.com/cryptocurrencies/aave-enj/ * CoinMarketTrade: https://www.coinmarketrade.com/coinmarketcap/ALINK/aave-enj * CryptoMarkets: https://cryptomarkets.mobi/currency/aave-enj * CoinCost: https://coincost.net/en/currency/aave-enj * BitcoinsMarket: https://bitcoins-market.net/currency/aave-enj * Cryptooze: https://www.cryptooze.com/currency/aave-enj * GlobalCoinListing: https://globalcoinlisting.com/currency/aave-enj * CryptoToolSet: http://www.cryptotoolset.com/how-to-buy-aenj-aave-enj-online/ * CoinAtomy: https://coinatomy.com/currency/aave-enj * CoinMarkets: https://www.coinmarkets.fr/cryptomonnaies/exchanges-cours-aave-enj * DemoCryptos: https://democryptos.com/coins/AENJ/aave-enj/ * CryptoCurrencyMarket: https://www.cryptocurrencymarket.uk/currency/aave-enj * CoinMonitor: https://coinmonitor.nl/currency/aave-enj * CapAndList: https://capandlist.com/currency/aave-enj * EveryG: https://everyg.com/crypto/aave-enj/ * CJsGO: https://cjsgo.com/currencies/AENJ/aave-enj/ * BeingCrypto: https://es.beincrypto.com/precio/aave-enj/ * CryptoMAA: http://cryptomaa.com/crypto/aave-enj/ * CryptoMonedas: https://www.criptomonedas.vip/comprar/aave-enj/ * ConseilsCrypto: https://conseilscrypto.com/coinmarketcap/aave-enj/ This submission satisfies all listing criteria and should therefore be accepted into T2CR.

Evidence #9:

Token challenge Ticker should be aENJ. See Etherscan and official Aave website.
Check this Case on Kleros Resolve