Dispute #509

Court Start Date Dispute Status Current Period Time remaining End Date
Non-Technical 2020-12-07 18:17 Already Ruled Execution Already Ruled 2020-12-16 03:11
Arbitrable Creator

Unique Votes in all the rounds

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
0 3 0 0

Round 0

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
0 3 0 0
Round 0 Vote Casting Date
No 2020-12-12 15:04
No 2020-12-11 15:44
No 2020-12-09 20:08


Evidences provided by Vagarish

Evidence #1:

Challenger is right about Logo Quality. Reject. After doing some due diligence on aTokens and their respective logos, this logo does not make the cut. The challenger mentions poor cutting of the logo, which is true. There are some pixels cut off from the circle + white pixels leftover from cutting a white background. However, the true problem here is a consistency problem. The submitter has forgotten to cut out the white background from the inner circle. Attached to this evidence, you can find an example of a transparent, correct aToken logo, straight from the Aave website. Apart from the main website, Coingecko and other coin trackers also use a fully transparent logo. Lastly, the previous versions of the aTokens in the T2CR also had the correct and transparent logos. I urge all fellow Ace Attorneys to reject this submission.

Evidence #2:

Good catch challenger! Hello, I'm the submitter, And I uploaded the wrong quality version of the logo, as Juror I invite you to vote to reject this submission, I'll submit again with higher quality logo!

Evidence #3:

Token challenge The logo is badly cut, clearly noticeable at the outer ends. It should not be accepted in its present form.
Check this Case on Kleros Resolve