Dispute #469

Court Start Date Dispute Status Current Period Time remaining End Date
Non-Technical 2020-11-01 12:28 Already Ruled Execution Already Ruled 2020-11-17 01:02
Arbitrable Creator

Unique Votes in all the rounds

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
9 6 0 2

Round 0

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
0 3 0 0
Round 0 Vote Casting Date
No 2020-11-04 12:03
No 2020-11-03 14:47
No 2020-11-03 17:34

Round 1

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
3 2 0 2
Round 1 Vote Casting Date
Yes 2020-11-08 20:49
Yes 2020-11-08 20:49
Yes 2020-11-08 17:57
No 2020-11-05 21:56
No 2020-11-09 02:07

Round 2

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
9 4 0 2
Round 2 Vote Casting Date
Yes 2020-11-09 19:03
Yes 2020-11-12 21:15
Yes 2020-11-12 10:34
Yes 2020-11-09 22:45
Yes 2020-11-09 22:45
No 2020-11-09 19:23
No 2020-11-09 19:23
No 2020-11-09 19:23
Yes 2020-11-09 19:03
Yes 2020-11-10 18:15
Yes 2020-11-12 13:25
No 2020-11-09 23:41
Yes 2020-11-11 02:27


Evidences provided by Vagarish

Evidence #1:

Official statement 0xf0b699a8559a3ffaf72f1525abe14cebcd1de5ed It appears surprisingly that Trendering has made an official statement above which I have verified by checking the address of evidence submitter here (https://court.kleros.io/cases/469) which leads to this address (https://etherscan.io/address/0xf0b699a8559a3ffaf72f1525abe14cebcd1de5ed) which is the contract creator of TRND contract (https://etherscan.io/address/0xc3dd23a0a854b4f9ae80670f528094e9eb607ccb) confirmed on TRND token etherscan page (https://etherscan.io/token/0xc3dd23a0a854b4f9ae80670f528094e9eb607ccb). Obviously further discussion is redundant as both the confirmation of being official and the reasons given for distinguishing between transparent, grey and black backgrounds hold ground for T2CR purposes.

Evidence #2:

Challenger continues to desperately ignore evidence in bad faith Challenger attempts to distract jury from well established evidence with claims that "there is no association of the grey background with TRND" when it has been completely established that the official token symbol is a PNG with a grey background, and has been used in all official sources. Thread of evidence above can be consulted to avoiding repeating it once more here.

Evidence #3:

CONFIRMED: submitted logo is the correct token symbol It's not obligatory to upload transparent token symbols to the T2CR, there is a very clear jurisprudence regarding this. When a colored background is a feature of the token symbol, it's actually a must to include it. Failing to do so, would result in a violation of the following policy rule: "➤ The logo should be fully included." Additionally, it would violate jurisprudence, as there are numerous logos without a transparent background in the T2CR. The best example of this would be the yAxis (YAX) token symbol, which consists of a GREY background. (https://tokens.kleros.io/token/0x7a5e24a0edbb80c92a50436c38a20aaf0b2d8b606d1d448dc47ed77f2e928495). When a background is a feature of the logo, is MUST be included. The founder of Trendering even confirmed that the grey background is intented, to make the token symbol display properly on Uniswap. Another rule of the policy, and jurisprudence, is to use the token symbol, and NOT the project logo. The founder of Trendering confirmed that the logo with transparent background is NOT the token symbol: "The image of bars on the transparent background is not made for token logos, instead it is used for various branding purposes." Since submitted image is officially confirmed to be the token symbol, there rests no other choice than to accept this submission to the T2CR.

Evidence #4:

We should upload a transparent token logo Despite what the creators of the project have to say, the policy is clear in that we should upload a transparent token logo. In this particular case, the logo appears both over black, grey and white background. This is compatible with a transparent background. There is no association of the black background with xTRND nor grey background with TRND. Instead, the logo contains the token ticker TRND in all cases. So, we must assume that the logo is TRND over whatever background, so transparent.

Evidence #5:

Official Trendering statement on the TRND token logo The TRND token logo consists of the bars on a grey background. The grey background is an integral part of the TRND token logo. The first reason for this is the xTRND token logo, which is an inverse: bars on a black background. If we were to consider simply the bars on a transparent background, there would be very little distinction between TRND and xTRND. The second reason is the purpose of T2CR: a list on Uniswap. For the logos to display properly on Uniswap V2 interface, they should have a filled background, and that was the intention of the Trendering creator. The image of bars on the transparent background is not made for token logos, instead it is used for various branding purposes. This message is submitted via the Trendering: Deployer, the creator address of the TRND token.

Evidence #6:

Challenger is truly despicable and dishonest Dear Challenger, I apologize for having had the courtesy to bother addressing all of your claims and refuting your false evidence and repeated false assertions. No part of any submission of evidence has been "ranting", it has all been relevant to the case and addressing points you have raised. Your evidence is non-existent and your failure to address any valid points is what speaks for itself. It has already been demonstrated multiple times that this submission is consistent with policies on logos and transparency as per the T2CR policy and with how it has been applied in every other case here, including cases with actual white backgrounds. I urge jurors not to be distracted by challenger's misdirection and accusation and to evaluate the evidence for themselves, which in reality very simply demonstrates without any plausible doubt that 1) Grey background is the correct and official token logo and 2) Submission is consistent with prior T2CR submissions and T2CR policy. You will see for yourself that challenger has a pattern of dishonesty if you evaluate any of their evidence submissions.

Evidence #7:

It is obvious who is polluting the evidence section if you look at the length of the requester's posts Dear jurors. The requester is just ranting and manufacturing baseless claims. It is obvious who is polluting the evidence section if you look at the length of the requester's posts. My evidence is strong and speaks for itself. And most importantly, the listing criteria clearly asks for a transparent logo which the requester keeps ignoring. If you are in doubt, please read the listing criteria again and it should be easy to decide. https://ipfs.kleros.io/ipfs/QmbqgkZoGu7jJ8nTqee4NypEhK7YVBEJJmPJbJxz8Bx8nY/t2cr-primary-doc.pdf

Evidence #8:

Re: Twitter, Telegram, CMC, GitHub etc Once again to address the malicious dishonesty in a previous evidence discussion between third party and challenger. 1) Asking founder for correct logo - has already been addressed and challenger is being absurd. 2) Github - The profile pic for GitHub is the exact same grey background used everywhere and confirmed by founder (https://avatars2.githubusercontent.com/u/70268646?s=200&v=4). Checking the asset folders (https://github.com/Trendering/dapp) will show that there are multiple variations and uses of the exact same grey background, and the availability of a version of the transparent as an asset, which does not make it the correct logo nor support challengers claims. 3) Challenger claims (knowingly) incorrectly that Twitter and Telegram cannot be used to check tranparency because those websites add backgrounds to logos, when it is completely evident that they are using the grey background submitter by the trendering team which has been well established and confirmed to be part of the logo. 4) The listing of a group of lesser used and non-official sources which could have been added or changed by challenger does not refute the fact that grey background is confirmed part of logo, and has been used everywhere official as part of logo. You cannot just repeat selective evidence while refusing to address more powerful evidence to the contrary, nor would the changing of CoinGecko logo been necessary if you truly believed you were in the right here. 5) I do believe that certain aggregators actually do use only background-removed versions of logos and have TRND listed with the transparent version, such as CMC. This does not apply to T2CR as already provided by extensive discussion and evidence and failure to refute this point.

Evidence #9:

Challenger is the only one polluting evidence section, and relying only on misdirection while refusing to address the actual case being made and absolute correctness of logo Hi Challenger, why have you bothered to waste your funds appealing this on no grounds? You are presenting no case, failing to address previously discussed matters and presenting absolutely biased evidence which does not change the matter. My only regret is that this was crowdfunded while I was asleep. You are not correctly following the listing criteria, you are only arbitrarily obsessing over a single word in contradiction to criteria over correctness of logo and the absolute fact that it has been applied for non-transparent logos consistently in the past. The transparent logo rule has clearly been established as intending to prevent bad photo editting by keeping white backgrounds which are not supposed to be in the logo. No one is disputing that the token founder would be fine with having different versions of the logo listed, only that the grey background is inclusive and correct regardless. Even if you were to convince the founder to change to a rainbow or completely blank logo tomorrow, the case would still not be to your favor as it was completely correct at time of listing and has only become incorrect as a result of your manipulation, which is dishonest and fraudulent in every sense of the word, in the same way your non-neutral questioning of founder is (which you can compare to when I asked founder, which was completely neutrally stated). For the millionth time then: 1) Grey background is 100% confirmed part of logo and has been used in every representation of the token put forward by the Trendering. 2) Precedent dictates that the correct logo is submitted, even when not transparent. See huge list above and countless other cases on Kleros. 3) Challenger is manipulating and fraudulent, in changing listings, presenting faulty evidence, misdirecting and misrepresenting (see above). 4) If you have been around since old kleros forum days, you already know that submissions are intended to favor submitter. This has been stated by founders multiple times. 5) The fact that you are trying to win this case by spamming no new information but only distracting jury and failing to address what I have pointed out multiple times is pathetic. Only reasonable thing I see is that you have muliple high-stake wallets and hoping to outweigh the judgement with them. It seems all rational actors can can see that a case gone to this many rounds is worth putting the effort into and are going against you though. 6) Your dismissal of appeal funder and accusation of polluting evidence section is completely abusive given you are the one polluting the evidence section and fail to address his/her perfectly valid concerns. You realize that jury will see that over a dozen evidence discussions this is all you have done, right? Even if you just use alt accounts to do it, it is still completely transparent to anyone with a brain. 7) I once again humbly request you drop this nonsense - I don't care about the money, I am here to contribute, but this type of frivolity is awful for the Kleros ecosystem. You are literally arguing for refuse a completely valid listing, which has been proven correct, confirmed consistent with application on T2CR, actively funded and argued for, with absolutely no evidence except for the fact that there is also another logo which could be used, which has not contradicted the fact that the logo used is 100% correct. If you don't see the absolute lack of merit in this then I don't know how to plead further with you.

Evidence #10:

Please don't pollute the evidence section unless you have actual CORRECT evidence Dear third party. Evidence can be posted anytime. Please don't pollute the evidence section unless you have actual CORRECT evidence. Of course, I asked the founder for the correct transparent logo because I am strictly following the listing criteria. You should read it before funding an appeal next time.

Evidence #11:

Refuted: "evidence" posted by challenger You literally asked: "Which one is the correct TRANSPARENT logo for the TRND token?" After which you send a logo with a transparent background, and a logo without a transparent background. The founder responded: "Hi. ONLY the first one is transparent." So basically he said: "Well, you are sending me an image with a transparent background and an image without a transparent background, so the answer to your question is simple, ONLY the first one is transparent. On top of that, why wait with posting Dear jurors, don't let the challenger fool you, with his creative way of producing "evidence". He literally just asked the founder which of the two images has a transparent background, that's all. If CoinMarketCap never had the grey background, then why no one refuted this claim? Only after a week has passed, CMC was brought up for the first time, for not having a grey background. Fact remains that almost all authorative sources included the grey background, even if CMC were to be excluded. The logos (with grey background) on Twitter and Telegram can be used as evidence. If the grey part was not a feature, than why didn't they put the logo on a white background?

Evidence #12:

Please see evidence from the Trendering founder The requester's question to the Trendering founder was misleading. The listing criteria clearly asks for a transparent logo and the question did not mention the transparency requirement. I asked my friend to reach out to the Trendering founder on Telegram and ask for the correct transparent logo. Please see the attached evidence. ======================== To reply to the last comment, the third party is wrong (0x4a2c5a0af8b29cd5fd8eb1d02a83150a3ee10488). The logo on CoinMarketCap has always been transparent. You can see it for yourself. https://web.archive.org/web/20201010043159/https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/trendering/ The logos on Twitter and Telegram cannot be used to check transparency because those websites add backgrounds to logos. The transparent logo is available in the Trendering website, Trendering GitHub account, CoinMarketCap, Coinbase, 3commas, CoinDataFlow and some other sources I linked in my previous comment.

Evidence #13:

Appeal Funder: submission complies with jurisprudence I agree with the requester here. At the time of submission, external websites CoinMarketCap, CoinGecko, and Etherscan all included the grey background. Besides that, official Trendering sources, such as their Twitter, GitHub, Telegram, and also website, all include the grey background. If external sources, such as CMC and CG, change the logo because someone requested this, jurors should watch passed this. Jurors should rule, on the basis of the state of the world, at the moment of challenge. Changing facts, during an ongoing dispute, are irrelevant. Someone tried the same trick on the Switch case, which didn't work out as he planned. In the last appeal, jurors voted fairly, and decided to vote according with the facts which were present at the time of the challenge. As the founder of Trendering also confirmed that the grey background is inclusive, it's a clear case for me that this submission should be accepted to the T2CR. For the jurors of the coming appeal: Vote fairly. Vote on the facts, which were present at the time of the challenge. Don't let malicious actors win. Vote YES, as this submission is perfectly fine. The submitted logo is both the official and most commonly used token symbol, so it is the correct logo to use for the T2CR.

Evidence #14:

Once again, consistent with T2CR in every case Hi third party, please note it has already been established that your position contradicts every other usage on T2CR and commentary has been made on the interpretation and implications necessary for the transparency to be required. I completely agree that Kleros team should take responsibility for setting clear policies and ensuring they are adhered to consistently, but at present time we only have the policy and precedent to refer to, and it would be unreasonable to abuse policy to reject otherwise correct submissions which are consistent with intent and precedent.

Evidence #15:

Hey hey, read Policy Should be transparent, there is a transparent option in page, that's why I funded challenger. It doesn't matter grey background is inclusive, T2CR should hold transparent logos.

Evidence #16:

Attack is not relevant to the case, evidence and reality stands for itself Dear Challenger, I apologize for my frustration at your dishonesty in this case, your outright stating of incorrect information and manipulation of listings to support your case. I hope that jury will understand my frustration. In response to your claims, while there is no denying that a transparent logo is available, once again I point out that the founder has specifically stated that the grey background is inclusive of the logo for the token, rendering further discussion irrelevant. However, just to address your misdirection for the sake of any jury who has any doubt after comparing to precedent and seeing confirmation from the founder: 1) You mistake usage on github (https://github.com/trendering) with the availability of a transparent logo which is used for other purposes. 2) It is safe to ignore aggregator listings at this stage as it is clear you are not above manipulating them, as evidenced by the fact that they magically change during the course of this case. Even considering this, how the aggregators use their logos in other instances would be compared to how it is used on T2CR (precedent), which would confirm using the full logo is correct. In any event, it is the correct logo that is required, not the most commonly used (contrary to policy on names, which require most commonly used name). 3) Your repeated misdirection and assertion does not change the absolutely established reality that "the token for Trendering token is inclusive of the grey background", regardless of whether there are 50 other renditions of the logo available all with different background colors and levels of opacity and transparency. You are grasping at straws and have been caught acting dishonestly already. You have failed to dispute the precedent set and refused to engage on any point that has been addressed. I do apologize if you feel attacked, which comes down to nothing personal, though I do absolutely denounce dishonesty and lack of integrity which is being demonstrated here.

Evidence #17:

Attacking the other party does not help your cause Dear requester, attacking the other party does not help your cause. If you figured you can change the CoinGecko logo, go ahead and change it. Please don't accuse me for doing so. 1. You keep ignoring that there is a transparent logo and it is used in the Trendering website, Trendering GitHub account, CoinMarketCap, Coinbase, 3commas, CoinDataFlow and some other sources I quickly put together. https://trendering.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/trnd-ico-256-transparent.png https://github.com/Trendering/dapp/blob/master/trnd-ico-256-transparent.png?raw=true https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/trendering/ https://www.coinbase.com/price/trendering https://3commas.io/coin-price-chart/trendering-btc https://coindataflow.com/en/currency/trendering https://cryptopro.app/price/trendering/ https://en.cryptonomist.ch/wp-content/uploads/tokens/trnd.png https://beincrypto.com.br/preco/trendering/ 2. Trendering founder acknowledged the existence of the transparent logo. The needs of T2CR require the transparent logo by its listing criteria. 3. In addition to your logo and transparent logo, TRND has a logo with black background too. However, the listing criteria specifically ask for the transparent logo, so you should have submitted that. https://github.com/Trendering/dapp/blob/master/xtrnd-ico-512.png?raw=true

Evidence #18:

Clarification To clarify: 1) Founder has clearly indicated without a doubt that the grey background is a part of the logo and has used it in every instance of representing the token. 2) Correctness of logo supersedes transparency, as evident by all precedent, even in cases where the background has been actually white. 3) Challenger has submitted changes to aggregators to support his case, as evident by checking the coingecko snapshot which indicates a change during the course of this case. 4) There is no basis for rejecting submission other than an interpretation of 'transparency' which contradicts all previous use on T2CR and the actual accuracy of the logo, and goes against any measure of good will which allows submitters to do their due diligence and make correct submissions based on how already existing submissions and rules have been applied.

Evidence #19:

Challenger is a lying cheat who manipulates to game the system rather than allowing it to be used for what it is for. Challenger is the definition of acting in bad faith. Once again 1) Confirmed that the chosen background is part of the logo, 2) Confirmed that it occurs EVERYWHERE, 3) Consistent with precedent in every situation, including https://tokens.kleros.io/token/0x8c1338dcc6673b77b4850830bbee1526a183581cbca97da7bea72cb33f8f80af which Challenger attempted to pretend had been rejected for logo, where in fact it had originally only be rejected for name. Fortunately, for evidence of challenger's malignity and dishonesty, archive.org's single annual snapshot of CoinGecko was taken only days ago on Oct 27, where you will see that the original logo has been used (https://web.archive.org/web/20201027235919/https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/trendering/). Obviously challenger is the party who has caused this as there are no other actors with an interest in doing so and no reason for this to coincidentially occur. We also know that founder would not have pursued this based on the obvious evidence of the conversation above and the fact that no official source nor etherscan has been changed. After doing some research, I have discovered that having a token changed on CoinGecko is as simple as sending in a form (https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScIlVCl2qIc9SMPxHZCuZAZkRCxCNZugjNmHZISswAeodlc0A/viewform) and waiting less than 24 hours, with no verification required. Going through Challenger's history, it would appear they have used this trick multiple times to trick juries and deny facts, impacting the integrity of this system. You will notice in none of these cases has any official channel been updated nor etherscan, which is the only place which appears to require a signed message from the contract to change. Challenger: I humbly implore you to graciously concede this case and cease littering up T2CR with such fraudulent acts. I will happily appeal until 2024 if that's what it takes no matter how much effort you put into your lies, as there is no doubt that the submission is valid and that you have intentionally gamed the system.

Evidence #20:

The needs of T2CR require the transparent logo The Trendering founder was asked: "Hi, which of these should be used for trendering logo on aggregators etc? https://trendering.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/trnd.png or https://trendering.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/trnd-ico-256-transparent.png" And he answered: "It depends on the needs. The latter has transparent background." The T2C2 listing criteria says "Attached Logos should be PNG format with a transparent background". Therefore, the needs of T2CR require the transparent logo. Main aggregator sites use the transparent TRND logo for the same reason. This submission violates listing criteria. It should be rejected and resubmitted with the transparent logo.

Evidence #21:

Founder has confirmed grey background is part of logo It appears that 2/3 votes were cast during last round before evidence had fully been addressed. Sufficient evidence has already been submitted demonstrating precedent is in favor of keeping the grey background. If any doubt remains, consider whether we would be having the same discussion if the background had been noticably blue, or red, as in many other instances including those linked in the previous evidence. Note that there are numerous example of white backgrounds also being included, but only where the white background is also included in the logo ordinarily, as it is in this case. In any event, I took the liberty of reaching out to the founder on Telegram before appealing just to save the effort in the event I was fundamentally wrong about whether the logo included the grey background as it did in all official usage. As you can see from the shared screenshot, the founder confirmed that yes, the grey background is included in the token's logo, rendering further speculation irrelevant. In summary then 1) Grey background is part of the logo as a) it has been confirmed by founder and b) is what has clearly intentionally been used in every situation by the founder/team, 2) Is consistent with policies and precedent and 3) the above renders any discussion about transparency redundant.

Evidence #22:

Grey background is demonstrably a design choice Challenger's point has already been refuted and evidence demonstrated confirming that the grey background is part of the logo on every platform as an intentional design choice, and not to be confused with the erroneous leaving of a white background in a transparent PNG or accidental copying of a grey background. The 'precedent' cases which challenger offers are completely unreasonable and cherrypicked examples which do not even hold up to scrutiny themselves, among dozens of contradicting examples, including https://tokens.kleros.io/token/0x7a7dcfef2ea32f2eb07258f7734c1ce68f0d7a6a93c1d373db0b1d19a9213b43, https://tokens.kleros.io/token/0x27a1c2eb7c4199a467399aa7489e2227aad592d3877c01fe56cc99a1a1cbb27e, https://tokens.kleros.io/token/0x28c321de4451981f9ea813c6333639aba7df3ff1e2842aa5c9ff33f2ebe96c72, https://tokens.kleros.io/token/0x632a5c1d3adf3e26b08f4404f988eb6628a1f03ede277d8afd60e6f6523e9629, https://tokens.kleros.io/token/0x9b5c26381fde437a1eb0fda642bc07d20cef3cf46b17f0d6a68c0163f5f4db1c, https://tokens.kleros.io/token/0xe6c136f9309e9998001dfb13527fc1e9105bd92085ace3e50d70a3d0dff26592, https://tokens.kleros.io/token/0x68235e07fb1654f6f05fdb872fe8eb62953b09c9869c178021ebe17367bedcf0, https://tokens.kleros.io/token/0x254d516c394a979d37dfae273ebb5eafae0125f6e5d8eb5d7b8136b768a2eabc and EVEN https://tokens.kleros.io/token/0x8c1338dcc6673b77b4850830bbee1526a183581cbca97da7bea72cb33f8f80af, which is the listing of STAKE, which was used by challenger themselves as an example, clearly having been accepted by the community here. If such an approach had been considered problematic by the community or kleros team at any point in the many months they have been listed and being listed, then there would have been a reflecting update and change to the policies to make the intent clear. A basic understanding of the policies and the submissions which have been accepted and rejected will demonstrate without a doubt that the 'transparent png' rule is a measure against dirty white/colored backgrounds where they do not belong as part of the brand or logo, and not as a means of strict legalism and frivolous challenges.

Evidence #23:

Attached Logos should be PNG format with a transparent background The listing criteria says: "Attached Logos should be PNG format with a transparent background". TRND has two versions of the same logo; one with transparent background and one with white background. Since the listing criteria clearly asks for transparent background, the requester should have submitted the logo with transparent background. LinkArt (LAR) and xDai STAKE (STAKE) precedents show why the logo with transparent background is needed for a successful submission: * https://tokens.kleros.io/token/0x874b1ac3dff157ff0c18cdfe99d82a4e0427b4a53dae327e16263dacfab4b3e2 * https://tokens.kleros.io/token/0xd2fc0168b867c061e9aa8650ce168fb5330872f19dba2d1faf542e59feee7f8b This submission violates listing criteria. It should be rejected and resubmitted with the transparent logo.

Evidence #24:

Transparency The listing is consistent with the guideline "The token symbol should be a transparent PNG" insofar as it is as transparent as the actual logo/symbol will allow, i.e. when accounting for the recognizable grey background which is consistently applied in all public presentations of the token's branding. Replacing the intentional grey background with a transparent one would be a deliberate act of inaccuracy for the sake of adhering to a technicality which would not apply in this situation.

Evidence #25:

Official Logo The transparent logo is not the official logo, and is *only* used for the site header/favicon. All official representations use the grey background, including etherscan (https://etherscan.io/token/0xc3dd23a0a854b4f9ae80670f528094e9eb607ccb), coingecko (https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/trendering), GitHub (https://github.com/trendering), Twitter profile and tweets (https://twitter.com/trendering), and all usage on the trendering.com website (minus the aforementioned header home link and favicon, which are clearly for aesthetic purposes).

Evidence #26:

Token challenge The submitted logo is not transparent. The transparent logo can be viewed at the official project website: https://trendering.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/trnd-ico-256-transparent.png
Check this Case on Kleros Resolve