Dispute #456

Court Start Date Dispute Status Current Period Time remaining End Date
Non-Technical 2020-10-31 21:50 Already Ruled Execution Already Ruled 2020-11-23 16:47
Arbitrable Creator
Tokens

Unique Votes in all the rounds

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
5 13 0 0

Round 0

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
1 2 0 0
Round 0 Vote Casting Date
Yes 2020-11-03 12:11
No 2020-11-03 13:30
No 2020-11-04 03:22

Round 1

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
5 2 0 0
Round 1 Vote Casting Date
Yes 2020-11-08 01:27
No 2020-11-07 20:54
No 2020-11-07 20:54
Yes 2020-11-07 20:44
Yes 2020-11-07 20:44
Yes 2020-11-04 17:32
Yes 2020-11-07 23:34

Round 2

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
4 11 0 0
Round 2 Vote Casting Date
No 2020-11-12 11:17
No 2020-11-09 20:55
No 2020-11-09 20:55
No 2020-11-09 20:55
No 2020-11-12 15:37
No 2020-11-12 20:22
No 2020-11-11 23:28
No 2020-11-11 06:06
Yes 2020-11-11 12:43
No 2020-11-12 23:17
No 2020-11-12 23:17
Yes 2020-11-09 22:48
Yes 2020-11-09 22:48
Yes 2020-11-09 22:48
No 2020-11-13 13:12

Round 3

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
0 31 0 0
Round 3 Vote Casting Date
No 2020-11-19 09:17
No 2020-11-18 05:45
No 2020-11-16 21:47
No 2020-11-17 20:09
No 2020-11-17 20:09
No 2020-11-18 17:16
No 2020-11-19 15:16
No 2020-11-19 15:16
No 2020-11-19 15:16
No 2020-11-18 17:16
No 2020-11-18 17:16
No 2020-11-18 17:16
No 2020-11-17 16:36
No 2020-11-17 16:36
No 2020-11-17 16:36
No 2020-11-17 16:36
No 2020-11-17 16:36
No 2020-11-17 11:29
No 2020-11-17 11:29
No 2020-11-17 11:29
No 2020-11-18 01:28
No 2020-11-18 01:28
No 2020-11-18 01:28
No 2020-11-18 01:28
No 2020-11-18 01:28
No 2020-11-20 04:37
No 2020-11-19 16:20
No 2020-11-19 16:20
No 2020-11-19 16:20
No 2020-11-17 21:40
No 2020-11-19 15:21

Evidences

Evidences provided by Vagarish

Evidence #1:

Should be removed Challenger already lost on AUGUR case. AUGUR removed because of not centering icon and challengers are same. https://tokens.kleros.io/token/0x5e1df04baf8a3004fd2e5cb6749b68ad3be5b56973753ec1cbe88e650e3fef59

Evidence #2:

https://telegra.ph/Evidence-11-16 Please check out my evidence, thanks for your time.

Evidence #3:

Should be removed This icon is not centered. As listing policies 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 #4:

Make sense If you think uncentering is not a problem for you why you are blaming me again and again about submitting new evindence. If you really thought this issue was not a removing reason then you would just defend it but you are blaming me to submit new evidence.

Evidence #5:

Nice lie by the requester: "If there was a little mistake i already won't send removing request" Don't act like you made this removal request due to it not being centered. You made this removal request only due to token migration, and you lost that argument. If you would have requested this removal due to not being centered, you would have posted this during the evidence phase or during the first round, but you didn't. Only after you lost the token migration argument, you decided to change arguments during the 1st appeal. You are not fooling anyone. Also, moving the logo 1 pixel to the left would make it perfectly centered. So yeah, 1 pixel, not 3.

Evidence #6:

Not acceptable Not acceptable icon. If this was a pixel mistake then you can't see this issue at everywhere. This issue visible at the list. This token should be removed. If we keep this token at list every single submitter can add new uncentered tokens. Btw please check out my evidence. https://telegra.ph/Eidoo---EDO-Evidence-11-09

Evidence #7:

Centered argument is irrelevant but token symbol size is not fitting rule Depending on the number of pixels, you can not always get a perfectly centered symbol: So, this argument looks irrelevant to me. However, policy states that the token symbol should be 128x128 which is not the case (remove the transparent pixels and the symbol size is obviously less than 128x128). Thus, I am leaning to acceptation of the removal request.

Evidence #8:

1 or 3 Firstly please decide is that 1 pixel or 3 pixels? This icon is OBVIOUSLY not at the center. This is not little mistake and should be removed. If there was a little mistake i already won't send removing request but this is not a little mistake and if we will keep this token at T2CR new poorly cutted tokens will be added randomly. We have policies and juror will be decide via listing criteria.

Evidence #9:

Removing Eidoo would set a horrible precedent 1. Removing this token from the T2CR, would set a precedent of removing all tokens which are 1 pixel off from the center, or if there is 1 pixel between the logo and the edge of the image. This means that any submission, which is not 100% perfect, should be rejected. Do you understand what a shitshow the TCR will become? Every submission will be challenged, for any nit picky reason. This will result in no on daring to submit anything anymore. This is just nonsense, and the requester knows this as well. He is desperately trying to win this case by claiming something absurd as this. 2. For the sake of the TCR, don't set an awful precedent, of rejecting every single submission which is 1 pixel away from the centre. PNK holders should protect the use case of the TCR. Removing this token and setting an absurd precedent of rejecting everything, will negatively impact the TCR, and thus also the PNK price. 3. The requester is obviously grasping at straws here, to find any reason to win his case. According to jurisprudence, regarding both token migration and logo quality, this submission should remain in the TCR. Therefore, I want to urge the jurors to vote accordingly with jurisprudence, but also vote what is reasonable, for the future of the TCR.

Evidence #10:

Listing Criteria There are not any initiative about policies. Also no one can decide byself just saying this is ok for me. We have listing criterias. As me and challenger said many times this icon is obviously NOT at the center. Here is related rule of listing criteria ➤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:

Presedence As a long time juror, presedence is important to me. Therefore I'm funding the challenging party of this dispute. There is no presedence, neither from earlier disputes nor policy, that migrating tokens should be removed. This is pretty simple, and as long as we don't know the potential future use cases of the Kleros T2CR, there's not a reason to remove. The logo is also fine as I see it, I believe this is an argument the opposing party makes to try to solve the dispute.

Evidence #12:

Eidoo (EDO) should remain in the T2CR The logo is fine, 1 pixel difference should not matter, what insignificant tiny error are we talking about... Secondly, 4 similar removal requests were rejected recently, because a token migration is not a valid reason to remove a token from the T2CR. There is no such policy, and now there also is a precedent. Eidoo (EDO) is a totally different token than pTokens (PNT). Different name, ticker, logo and token contract address. For these reasons, I will partially fund the appeal for the challenger's side.

Evidence #13:

Question to the jurors who voted to remove this token: I want to ask the yes voting jurors what their rational is for removing this token from the T2CR. The rulings of recent (similar) cases were to NOT remove tokens which migrated to another token contract address. The jury members of this case should follow this consistent decision, and vote NO, in order to NOT remove this token from the TCR. The other requester's - late - claim, was because the token was supposedly not centered enough. This is obviously a baseless claim, as the logo is - literally - only 1 pixel off from being perfectly centered. This, of course can't be the reason for removing this token from the Kleros TCR. Therefore, I would like to ask the 2 jurors to comment, why they decided to vote for a removal of Eidoo (EDO)

Evidence #14:

Policies I thought token migration was enough reason for removing but as we saw on other "similar cases" that wasn't but there are another issue on EDO logo. Thats clearly not at the center and rules are similar. Token logo should be centered. Thats all also I thought token migration was enough but that wasn't btw jurors should decide this issue (token centering) by themselves. Juror don't need our evidences they already have a policy and they should decide via this policy. And policy says ➤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 #15:

No similarities with case 302 How on earth is case 302 similar to this one? Case 302 wasn't even appealed, so there even was no possibility to submit late evidence, like the requester did in this case. The first round already concluded, and the requester only posted this new evidence during the appeal phase. So there is no way you can compare case 302, with this one. The requester made this removal request on the basis of token migration. As we all saw, all similar removal requests have been denied. Only because of that reason, the requester suddenly switched the narrative of his arguments, from token migration, to logo not being centered. Furthermore, I checked all the data before challenging this removal request, and everything was correct. The logo is not centered by a margin of 3 pixels, this is obviously a neglectible error. There are many tokens in the T2CR, which are not 100% centered, as this is almost impossible when done manually. We cannot expect everyone to use a photo editing program to crop their images. So, based on all recent similar cases, this removal request should be rejected as well. All the data is correct, and still refers to the EDO asset. Therefore, I ask the jurors to vote coherently with the first round, and vote NO.

Evidence #16:

Be Responsible! Firstly thank you so much for accepting my evidences background. So you agreed with me but also you don't want me to win this case, make sense(!) Also don't you know Case 302? Everyone can submit new evidence everytime! Here is a evidence video on case 302: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25hFyjQ0PJI Also please don't blame any other people for your fault. You should check carefully before challange my removal submission. If you think jurors who voted NO, why don't you think who voted YES? Jurors are also getting their choice's responsibility, you should too. As you can and we all can see this icon is NOT at the CENTER. Lastly i don't have to explain every single rules. Policy is in there and jurors has a reponsibility to decide via policy not only with our evidences. There are many cases decided by jurors without any evidences background.

Evidence #17:

Removal request should also be denied in the appeal We can both continue discussing the evidence, which was presented during the evidence period. Any new evidence, just after the evidence period is fine too. But submitting evidence late in the voting period, or even worse, during an appeal, is not acceptable, and could be categorized as bad intent. If submitting late evidence would be accepted, people will game the system. They will simply hold on to their "smoking gun" evidence, up until the 1st, 2nd or 3rd appeal. That way he can take a lot of ETH and make the jurors of the earlier rounds lose their staked PNK. This is obviously not fair for the jurors, but also not for the appeal funders and the challenger. Because of these reasons, submitting late evidence is not allowed. In the spirit of the law, jurors SHOULD NOT take late evidence into consideration. The submission that the requester is referring too is far from the same as this case. The BNS logo is not centered, on both axes, and much worse than the Eidoo logo. In the case of Eidoo, we are talking about 3! pixels differene, and only on the X axis. This logo is decently dropped. This, however, is irrelevant, as this evidence was presented for the first time during the appeal period.

Evidence #18:

Cropping is not a big deal 1. If we both still can submit new evidences these evidences won't become a late evidence. Everyone can submit new evidence at anytime. 2. So you can submit removal request these tokens too. People can easily be cropped perfectly. And we all know this is not impossible. Please don't present cropping as a big deal like splitting an atom. You can check accepted submissions, there are many perfect cropped tokens. 3. Here is a example of rejected submission because of not centered icon. https://tokens.kleros.io/token/0xdce2c7a10b31609af22f91564cb1b52990568504676bda43129bb3c8689d6795

Evidence #19:

New evidence in appeal phase is not fair for jurors 1. Submitting evidence only during the appeal phase is not fair for the jurors of the first round, therefore jurors of later appeals should not value late evidence in any way. 2. There are numerous of tokens which are not 100% centered, there is always room for minimal (human) error. People are not robots, and they can't spot a difference of 3 pixels. It's impossible to crop an image so that it's perfectly centered. When we are talking about 3 pixels, this is really an negligible small amount.

Evidence #20:

New Evidence We always can submit new evidences, you can't judge me about submitting new evidences. You should check carefully every single submission before challenging. As you said this icon is not at the center so rules are simple and this token should be removed anyway. There are not any iniative about that.

Evidence #21:

No policy rule stating this token should be removed The token name, ticker, and the logo all DID NOT change for token with contract address 0xCeD4E93198734dDaFf8492d525Bd258D49eb388E, thus, there is NO reason to remove this submission. pTokens (PNT) is another token than Eidoo (EDO). It has another name, ticker, logo, and most importantly, another token contract address. Please, point me to the policy rule, according to which Eidoo (EDO) should be removed. You can't, because there isn't. This removal holds no grounds, and should be rejected. And to respond to the last posted evidence, the logo not being centered is a difference of 3 pixels. And even if it would matter, you can't just come up with new evidence after not only the evidence period has passed, but even the voting period. If you wanted to use that evidence, you should have provided it earlier. Therefore, your evidence should be treated as void, and jurors should not weight that evidence in this dispute.

Evidence #22:

Lastly "➤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." -Additionally this icon not at the center, please download this icon and try to crop this icon then you will see yourself.

Evidence #23:

Poor Image Low resolution logo. It appears pixelated.

Evidence #24:

Everything is totally clear We don't need any badge for old tokens and also we don't have this option currently so you should propose the addition of a "token swapped" badge on https://forum.kleros.io/ instead of challenging this removel request. Everything is totally clear if a token name, ticker, contract address or logo changed we should remove it. Sorry for that but you need to learn to how brackets used. If the team didn't want to specify "non-ethereum swap" they could use "and/or" so this sentence totally means only mainnet swaps. As you said this sentence can be read with or without this side because they clearly wants to specify mainnet swaps. Anyway as i said many times old tokens should be removed. We always update this list and try to stay safe traders who prefer to use T2CR. Everthing should be smooth. We need to update this list with new tokens other ways if we don't remove old tokens we can't add new tokens of mostly ethereum swaps or users will be confused even if we add. Please think about that.

Evidence #25:

Submission still fully complies with the policy and should remain in the TCR We should keep it in the TCR, because there is no policy stating that it should be removed. Eidoo (EDO) and pTokens (PNT) are two separate tokens on the Ethereum Blockchain, so they should both be listed as separate tokens in the TCR. The old token is called Eidoo with ticker EDO, while the new token is called pTokens with ticker PNT. So, there is nothing duplicate about these two tokens the requester is referring to. Additionally, both tokens have an unique token contract address. If you want to mark specific tokens as "old tokens", you should propose the addition of a "token swapped" badge on https://forum.kleros.io/. But fully removing them from the token curated list is not what should be done. The policy rule I was referring to is not only about mainnet swapping, note how "with non-ethereum chains" is between brackets, thus the sentence can be read with and without including that part. The TCR policy actually literally mentions that tokens should NOT be denied listing based on token creation date, token swap status (with non-ethereum chains), use case or token activity. The data of this TCR submission is still correct, as the logo, name, ticker, and token contract address, still all refer to this token. Therefore, it should remain in the TCR. And last, but not least, the comment of Ferit on Telegram is irrelevant, and should be neglected by the jurors. This is a decentralized list, formed by the existing policy, and nothing else. And even if it would hold any ground in this dispute, this token would still comply with the policy, as all the information of this submission is still correct. As I said before, the logo, name, ticker, and token contract address, all correctly refer to the asset of this submission.

Evidence #26:

Why we have a removal option? If there is a new token why should we keep old token on the T2CR list. Doesn't make any sense. If we should keep these tokens on this list many people can get fraud because of this decision. Just think about KuCoin hack. This list should be updated fastly and we don't need any policy about removal. Btw please don't play with jurors this rule is clear. [➤Requests are not to be denied listing based on token creation date, token swap status (with non-ethereum chains), use case or token activity] So this rule is about mainnet swapping. For example Aeternity. Not about ERC20 to ERC20 swap. Lastly here is a clarification about why tokens can removal. https://t.me/klerosjuror/10651

Evidence #27:

No grounds for removal A token swap is not a reason to remove a submission from the T2CR. This token still exists on the Ethereum blockchain, so why should it be removed? There is no rule in the policy stating that, instead, it actually states that tokens shouldn't be denied listing based on token swap status. The old token contract remains active on the Ethereum blockchain, during, and even after the token swap occured. Transactions, contract interactions, and on-chain trades can still occur, so this token should definitely remain in the TCR.

Evidence #28:

EDO token contract has upgraded to PNT Token. https://etherscan.io/token/0x89Ab32156e46F46D02ade3FEcbe5Fc4243B9AAeD

Evidence #29:

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