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. 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.

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.

Same Name Same Icon New token can be denied because of same name and same icon(dual listing) so users can't add new CBDAO 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 list 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.

No confusion possible, because of different ticker There are multiple use cases for keeping this unique token submission 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. Just to be 100% sure that we do not create any confusion for a tiny percent of users. This is not a path that we should follow. The use cases of the TCR goes FAR beyond protecting some unexperienced traders, don't forget this. 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 token contract address, so they are far from duplicates. The differentiation between the 2 tickers, "SBREE" and "BREE" is btw enough to protect the unexperienced traders, as people mainly search on tickers. Significantly more, than they search on logos and names. And even if they search on the name, they immediately see that the ticker does not match the token they want to buy, so they obviously understand that they are looking at another token. There is no confusion possible. This token holds a lot of information, so 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. Because of all of the above, jurors in this case should vote NO, to keep this token in the TCR.

Token Should Be Removed There will be two CBDAO token with same icon, 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, same icon and also same name at T2CR.

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 name, AND have a different ticker. 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.

Synthetic CBDAO token contract has migrated to a new address. Here is new wallet address: 0x4639cd8cd52EC1CF2E496a606ce28D8AfB1C792F

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