Vote for what is right for the T2CR
Ask yourself: should we allow duplicates into the T2CR (same name, ticker, AND logo). That way, Aave REN (v1) and Aave REN (v2) will be indistuinguishable for users of the Kleros tokenlist. The only difference would then be the contract address, which would be very confusing for T2CR users. There needs to be a difference between the data of old and new/migrated tokens, so at least one of the following:
1. Different name;
2. Different ticker;
3. Different logo.
In the T2CR, there are 0 instances of submissions with the same name, ticker, and logo. Couple of months ago, when all the removals of migrated tokens got challenged, note that only those were challenged, where there was a difference in name, ticker, or logo. That is because having two submissions in the T2CR with the same name, ticker, and logo, will be confusing for T2CR users, but also for Kleros tokenlist users.
A difference in either the name, ticker, or logo can be seen at for instance the following tokens:
1. Augur: Ticker (REP and REPv2);
2. Aeron: Ticker (ARN and ARNX);
3. Autonio Ticker (NIO and NIOX);
4. UniCrypt: Logo;
5. Eidoo: Name and Ticker (EDO and PNT);
(note that some old tokens still got removed from the T2CR, for instance REP, but that reason was because of incorrect centering of the logo, so unrelated to this case).
In conclusion, we should NOT allow duplicates (same name, ticker, and logo) into the T2CR. In order to update the T2CR, we need to submit the new Aave tokens, as the old ones will be used less and less, and the new ones more and more. Someday soon the v1 tokens will be depreciated, and the v2 will be the only active Aave token. I am not saying we can't have the v1 tokens in the T2CR, they just ought to have a different name, ticker, or logo, from the new v2 tokens. We can debate about the correct naming convention we should follow in the juror chit-chat on Telegram. We need to re-submit all the v1 tokens to the T2CR, but with a different name. I would vouch for using v1 behind the name, I think that's more slick than (OLD), which aggregators seem to prefer. What is certain, however, is that the last 4 remaining Aave v1 tokens need to be removed from the T2CR, so that we can start adding the v2 tokens to the T2CR, using the correct name.
Lastly, I want to react to the following fallacy:
Challenger: "If not for one address that was drawn twice, results would have been different."
Me: "All the Spanish guys are acting like a mob. If there is something which had an influence on all these cases, it's the fact that the Spanish community is all voting the same way, in a group."