Dispute #459

Court Start Date Dispute Status Current Period Time remaining End Date
Non-Technical 2020-10-31 21:51 Already Ruled Execution Already Ruled 2020-11-17 01:02
Arbitrable Creator

Unique Votes in all the rounds

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
5 3 0 1

Round 0

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
0 2 0 1
Round 0 Vote Casting Date
No 2020-11-05 16:34
No 2020-11-06 09:51

Round 1

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
6 1 0 0
Round 1 Vote Casting Date
Yes 2020-11-12 21:36
Yes 2020-11-12 21:36
Yes 2020-11-13 10:22
Yes 2020-11-13 10:11
No 2020-11-11 06:06
Yes 2020-11-13 12:32
Yes 2020-11-13 12:55


Evidences provided by Vagarish

Evidence #1:

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 #2:

Token should be removed based on Symbol To start, this token is not the correct REP token, but the outdated one. https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/augur https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/augur/ Also, the policy states the token symbols should be centered and take the most space available. >This token symbol is 4px off-center and 10px too small in height. Reject this from the T2CR. If you believe the REP token should remain on the T2CR, I suggest resubmitting with the new logo. This one, however, doesn't follow policy and jurisprudence. Lastly: do not attempt to call this "new evidence". As a juror, you should do your own due diligence and this is a very clear removal. This is a more specialized court, which requires you to have a certain expertise and professionalism.

Evidence #3:

Migration and Cropping I am always free to submit new evindences and look out of box. You can't judge me because of that. I already explained everything about token migration and also shared another issue. These both probs i mentioned are reason for removal for me. If you think there is a necessary to keep this token in the T2CR you should submit again with CENTERED logo. Btw 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. Also here is an example of rejected submission because of not centered icon. https://tokens.kleros.io/token/0xdce2c7a10b31609af22f91564cb1b52990568504676bda43129bb3c8689d6795

Evidence #4:

Necessary to keep this token in the TCR As the requester feels he is losing ground on the migrated token argument, he is suddenly switching the narrative of his arguments. Now suddenly the token symbol is not centered, which is a baseless claim. There is a small amount of human error possible, we are not robots, we can't crop an image with 100% precision. Continuing to the previous discussion, it's necessary to keep this token in the TCR, as it is even still being traded on Uniswap as we speak. Both REP and REPv2 are actively being traded on Uniswap, so why should we remove this token from the TCR? That would just be dumb. On top of that, there are numerous of more possible use cases able by keeping this unique Ethereum token in the token curated list. Keeping the initial Augur token in the TCR is necessary for not narrowing down the use cases of the TCR to only 1 use case. This token should remain in the TCR, because it holds a lot of valuable information. By removing this token from the TCR, a precedent will be set to remove all token swapped, (seemingly) dead projects, etc. This is nowhere stated in the TCR, and we should not want to do this. That would only remove value from the TCR. Furthermore, there is no ground for the removal of this Ethereum token, which is an unique token on the Ethereum blockchain. The migrated token that the requester is referring to, has another ticker, another logo, AND another token contract address, so they are far from duplicates. The differentiation between the 2 tickers, "REP" and "REPv2", is enough to protect the unexperienced traders, as people mainly search on tickers. Significantly more, than they search on names. And even if they search on the name, they immediately see that not only the ticker does not match the token they want to buy, but ALSO the logo. At that moment they will most certainly understand that they are looking at another token. There is no confusion possible here. As this token holds a lot of information, we SHOULD NOT remove it from the TCR. On top of that, no policy rule exists saying that this submission should be removed. There is ALSO NO precedent. Instead, the policy leans more towards NOT DENYING tokens based on token swaps. And last, but not least, there is enough differentiation between the two tokens (ticker AND logo). Because of all of the above, jurors in this case should vote NO, to keep this token in the TCR.

Evidence #5:

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 #6:

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 #7:

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. Augur (REP) and Augur (REPv2) are two separate tokens on the Ethereum Blockchain, so they should both be listed as separate tokens in the TCR. On top of that, both tokens have different logos. Additionally, both tokens have an unique token contract address. So, there is nothing duplicate about these two tokens the requester is referring to. 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. In fact, REP is still being traded on Uniswap, and REPv2 is not. Removing this submission from the TCR would make no sense at all.

Evidence #8:

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 #9:

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 #10:

Token migration announcement. Reputation token contract v2 has been launched and migrated to a new address. https://augur.net/blog/rep-to-repv2-guide/

Evidence #11:

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