Dispute #461

Court Start Date Dispute Status Current Period Time remaining End Date
Non-Technical 2020-11-01 00:08 Already Ruled Execution Already Ruled 2020-11-10 00:17
Arbitrable Creator

Unique Votes in all the rounds

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
0 2 0 0

Round 0

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
0 3 0 0
Round 0 Vote Casting Date
No 2020-11-06 12:11
No 2020-11-06 12:11
No 2020-11-06 10:09


Evidences provided by Vagarish

Evidence #1:

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 #2:

Agree with the challenger The policy clearly states that submissions shouldn't be denied from the T2CR because of token swaps. Thus, there is no reason for the removal of this token from the T2CR. It is a token on the Ethereum blockchain, and it will stay like that forever. We shouldn't scope down the use-cases of the T2CR by removing swapped tokens. This submission should remain in the T2CR, because it is token on the Ethereum blockchain.

Evidence #3:

Token migration announcement. Leverj token contract has migrated to a new address. https://blog.leverj.io/introducing-layer2-d2b503e27039

Evidence #4:

Token challenge Listed as Leverj - LEV in CMC and CoinGecko. Referred as Leverj (capitalization included) by owners. Image meets requirements. Address is legit. Old tokens should stay in T2CR (as Policy). Why remove?
Check this Case on Kleros Resolve