Dispute #468

Court Start Date Dispute Status Current Period Time remaining End Date
Non-Technical 2020-11-01 11:06 Already Ruled Execution Already Ruled 2020-11-09 10:07
Arbitrable Creator
Tokens

Unique Votes in all the rounds

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
2 0 0 0

Round 0

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
3 0 0 0
Round 0 Vote Casting Date
Yes 2020-11-05 21:59
Yes 2020-11-03 14:13
Yes 2020-11-03 14:13

Evidences

Evidences provided by Vagarish

Evidence #1:

This submission satisfies all listing criteria The challenger is either trolling or ranting/spamming the evidence section to confuse jurors. His PASS2 ticker suggestion is another proof of the baselessness and ignorance of his claims. This submission satisfies all listing criteria and should therefore be accepted into T2CR.

Evidence #2:

T2CR is a place for List Integrity, not personal attacks. The requester has failed to complete their due diligence before this submission.* 1) It is clear that all authoritative project sources use a fully included "square logo": a) website - square logo - https://passport.finance/assets/favicon/android-chrome-512x512.png b) Coingecko - square logo - https://assets.coingecko.com/coins/images/12946/small/android-chrome-512x512.png?1604277448 c) Etherscan - square logo - https://etherscan.io/token/images/passport_32.png The requester has attached a "rectangle logo" to this token submission: d) T2CL Token submission - rectangle - https://ipfs.kleros.io/ipfs/QmUUnMJVkLb7h1BKF4XU8Ezcojh7AeWoaDyttucUoNUXts/Bcd3cmPKw7vJZosTr7UoVtX3iSzGJeqjkPe8ebHWseCC8zanHEkXsLNDc82sCfdHHdmtgXUXB4M6a6d4wfsLznim7H * Please refer to the case of XIO (https://tokens.kleros.io/token/0xdb8a54258ce606dff2c951b7c5e2b5805e75a9d2a1fcb709dc0266a9e4a404da) where the jurors ruled in favor of the challenger and the resulted in Token Rejected based on the Challengers claim: "A square logo is used consistently, but around logo was submitted to the TCR. The logo used for the TCR should match the most commonly used logo, which it doesn't, and should therefore be denied from the TCR until the correct logo is uploaded." 2) The requester fails to provide evidence that PASS is not a "case of duplicates" in the T2CR. This submission should be denied, and I suggest the requestor Resubmit Token with an (rst-a) official quality logo like the one attached to this evidence (rst-b) under the ticker symbol of PASS2, such as was used in the Nomics listing https://nomics.com/assets/pass2-passport-finance Therefore, I ask the jurors to vote NO.

Evidence #3:

The challenger is super confused The challenger's claims are totally baseless. If you inspect the challenger's EtherScan history, you can see that he just started participating in T2CR today and he is super confused. Interestingly, that does not stop him from making up rules and best practices. Square or circular transparent frames are not mentioned in the listing criteria. Please see the recent successful submissions of UFT, SWG, CYTR, and ZDEX whose frames are neither square nor circular. The requester's logo satisfies all listing criteria whereas the challenger's attached logo violates the rule: "The token symbol should not include the project or token name unless the symbol always includes it". You can see the requester's logo in the official project website, CoinGecko and EtherScan: * https://passport.finance/assets/favicon/android-chrome-512x512.png * https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/passport-finance * https://etherscan.io/token/0x6C4522F0035bED2180B40f4c5d9DbAab64B41325

Evidence #4:

Evidence in support of challenger point 2 (duplication) 2) The requester admits to the case of duplication by their admission, "The other PASS token is a different token. (https://ipfs.kleros.io/ipfs/QmTYDH916SCLZphMBjMJ3c4NinMEhkQNv2gXYyeEBLkKtK/Bcd5x28SmKnhhGzbAc95Ha7L1EJE5PiEEdC9ywzC8xF1gLHEMf4BDWc9TBXGGs8ejVrqZSErYv6DAWayvAk6V61y5C)"; Token tickers are a known attack vector. T2CR Policy clearly states: "In case of duplicates, only the first submission should be accepted", The case of duplicate for this Token Submission is the use of the PASS Ticker, a required individual field for Token Submission. You can verify the 'case duplicates' from https://tokens.kleros.io/tokens by searching for PASS. [see attached: 2a_duplicate-token-ticker.png]

Evidence #5:

Evidence in support of point 1 1) [a] The guidelines state, "The token symbol should be a transparent PNG of at least 128x128px and at most 2500x2500px", both of these supplied pixel dimensions imply an expectation for a square document requirement. Square or circle transparent frame dimensions for the token symbol are considered best practice. These guidelines are in place to support the basics of sound icon design, including consistency, legibility and clarity. [b] The Etherscan for token 0x6C4522F0035bED2180B40f4c5d9DbAab64B41325 lists a whitepaper at this link: https://passport.finance/assets/pdf/deck.pdf. From this pdf branding, you can see the logo is not fully included; Consideration must be made, as the logo violates of "The logo should be fully included" guideline. [see attached: 1b_full-logo-from whitepaper.png]

Evidence #6:

The challenger is clearly confused The challenger is clearly confused: 1. The other PASS token is a different token from a different project called Blockpass (see how its address is different, too). 2. The submitted logo is transparent and there is no word of square frame in the listing criteria. Please see the logos of these recently registered tokens which don't have square frames: UFT, SWG, CYTR, ZDEX.

Evidence #7:

Token challenge 2) The PASS token already exists in T2CR, this submission violates the guidelines as outline in the T2CR Policy: "In case of duplicates, only the first submission should be accepted.", see: https://tokens.kleros.io/token/0x1d053dfbadf0854ac55ede1bc1f81c110b0ba74152ea6a3ff925a63fe470a8a2 1) The included Symbol is 400x300px and is not fully included with a "square transparent frame".
Check this Case on Kleros Resolve