Different ticker and token contract address
To start, there are numerous possible use cases for keeping this unique Ethereum token in the token curated list. Keeping the initial CBDAO 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, so there can't be any confusion. The differentiation between the 2 tickers, "SBREE" and "BREE", 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 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.