Dispute #497

Court Start Date Dispute Status Current Period Time remaining End Date
Non-Technical 2020-11-30 21:55 Already Ruled Execution Already Ruled 2020-12-06 22:00
Arbitrable Creator

Unique Votes in all the rounds

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
3 0 0 0

Round 0

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
3 0 0 0
Round 0 Vote Casting Date
Yes 2020-12-03 09:54
Yes 2020-12-02 23:26
Yes 2020-12-02 19:09


Evidences provided by Vagarish

Evidence #1:

Submission follows the rules I understand that the challenger wants to keep the database as flawless as possible and in parallel with the other requests,but were the rest of the other rulings or requests flawless? Listing in T2CR is based on the rules not how the other courts ruled. I assumed the reason for the challenge on Golem was the contract migration and the change of logo, so you had it removed due to 'free space'? Is the free space in the rules? It says 'most of the space available' and the logo in this submission does take most of the space available in the square. Not ALL of it, but most of it, yes. The person may have lost the ruling in the Hydro Protocol but his argument is correct. For MOD, PRO, VEST, HOLO - no challenge does not translate to juror decision WINGS is a different case

Evidence #2:

Response to requester Requester argues that there are other registered tokens with the same amount of free space, but he can't list any of them here. In fact, all submissions with similar free space are getting all removed from the T2CR, so this submission should be denied as well.

Evidence #3:

Precedent There is a clear precedent to reject/remove tokens from the T2CR, which have token symbols that do not take most of the available space. The submitted logo leaves too much free space in all directions. Similar cases which all got rejected/removed from the T2CR are: Modum (MOD), Golem (GNT), Propy (PRO), VestChain (VEST), Hydro Protocol (HOT), Holo (HOT), Wings (WINGS). This is an unexhaustive list, as there are many more submissions which got denied for the same reason. The ones listed here are just some of the recent cases, but there are many more. Therefore, this submission should be rejected as well, as there is a clear precedent.

Evidence #4:

occupies most of the space The rules also say 'most of the space' not 'all of the space'

Evidence #5:

nothing is wrong it's the safe zone of the background. you can see other registered tokens of the same length from borders

Evidence #6:

Token challenge The token symbol leaves a lot of free space on all four sides of the image.
Check this Case on Kleros Resolve