Dispute #473

Court Start Date Dispute Status Current Period Time remaining End Date
Non-Technical 2020-11-02 21:43 Already Ruled Execution Already Ruled 2020-11-11 13:31
Arbitrable Creator
Tokens 0xd30c...fd76

Unique Votes in all the rounds

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
2 1 0 0

Round 0

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
2 1 0 0
Round 0 Vote Casting Date
0x6f5f5d2a7d9b6ea028b8efceab2ff221a27ab6e3 No 2020-11-07 20:54
0xe4230c0e536b704f82cb435876b4907cb1f66c13 Yes 2020-11-08 01:20
0xf83f70e148bc6ff29bb627f97eb691f30268c7e3 Yes 2020-11-07 17:51

Evidences

Evidences provided by Vagarish

Evidence #1:

Token should remain in the TCR according to jurisprudence Recently, 4 removal requests due to token migration were all rejected. In each of those disputes, the jury members decided to keep the token in the TCR (COSS, Autonio, Aeron, and Leverj). None of these cases were appealed, setting a precedent that migrated tokens SHOULD NOT be removed from the TCR. Jurors in this case, however ruled incoherently with similar recent cases. Since the ruling of this case is not consistent with the rulings of similar cases, an appeal should be funded. We cannot produce inconsistent rulings. Furthermore, the claim of the logo being pixelated is just baseless. The requester uploaded a zoomed in version of the logo, making it look more pixelated than it really is. I will attach a copy of the T2CR's UniCrypt logo. As you can see, there is nothing pixelated about this logo. The logo complies with the TCR standards, and is definitely NO reason for the removal of this token. According to jurisprudence, this token should remain in the TCR. I want to urge the jurors of the appeal to vote coherently with recent similar cases, thus voting NO.

Evidence #2:

Mi voto es por el "sí, quítalo" Señores, la imagen no cumple con la calidad necesaria para que el token permanezca en la lista curada.

Evidence #3:

As i said As i said token migration is a problem for me and it is a reason for removing. Otherways this logo is pixelated. There 2 issues for this submission and should be removed. Please see attachment. Also you can by yoursekf via downloading and trying crop this icon.

Evidence #4:

Different ticker AND logo To start, there are numerous possible use cases for keeping this unique Ethereum token in the token curated list. Keeping the initial UniCrypt 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 AND another logo, so there is nothing duplicate about them. The differentiation between the 2 tickers, "UNC" and "UNCX", 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. 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. Also, there is enough differentiation between the two tokens due to different tickers AND different logo. And last, but not least, similar removal requests have all been rejected recently. Because of all of the above, jurors in this case should vote NO, to keep this token in the TCR.

Evidence #5:

Same Name New token can be denied because of same name (dual listing) so users can't add new Auntonio if we won't remove old one. Also just imagine you can add. Users confused which one they want to buy. And they will think T2CR as a bad llist because of keeping old tokens. As i said old tokens can get hacked, scammed or anything else. As you said i wish add badges for this situation but we don't have any badges for now. So we should REMOVE this token to add new version.

Evidence #6:

Logo is fine, all information is still correct, token should NOT be removed 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 looks pixelated, which is obviously a baseless claim. The logo looks perfectly fine, and does not appear pixelated at all. Continuing with the previous discussion, it's necessary to keep this token in the TCR, since it is even still being traded on Uniswap as we speak, so why should we remove this token from the TCR? That would just be dumb. On top of that, there are numerous possible use cases for keeping this unique Ethereum token in the token curated list. Keeping the initial Aragon 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 name, another logo AND another token contract address, so they are far from duplicates. 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 neast, there is enough differentiation between the two tokens (name AND logo). Because of all of the above, jurors in this case should vote NO, to keep this token in the TCR.

Evidence #7:

Token Should Be Removed There will be two UniCrypt token if we won't remove this one and submit new token, in this situation Kleros T2CR users will confused. Doesn't make any sense to have 2 tokens by same project and also same name at T2CR. Also this icon is pixelated. ➤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 #8:

Token should remain in the TCR There is no policy stating that this token should be removed from the TCR. Because a token migration occurred, does not mean the old token should be removed. The token of this submission and the token the requester is referring to are 2 separate tokens on the Ethereum Blockchain, so they should both be listed as separate tokens in the TCR. Both tokens have an unique token contract address, have a different ticker, AND have a different logo. 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.

Evidence #9:

UniCrypt token contract has migrated to a new address. Here is new wallet address: 0xaDB2437e6F65682B85F814fBc12FeC0508A7B1D0

Evidence #10:

Token challenge This is a valid token on the Ethereum network. It should remain in the Kleros token curated registry.
Check this Case on Kleros Resolve