Dispute #808

Court Start Date Dispute Status Current Period Time remaining End Date
Non-Technical 2021-06-05 06:19 Already Ruled Execution Already Ruled 2021-06-14 06:32
Arbitrable Creator
Tokens

Unique Votes in all the rounds

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
2 0 0 1

Round 0

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
2 0 0 1
Round 0 Vote Casting Date
Pending
Yes 2021-06-10 05:27
Yes 2021-06-10 07:41

Evidences

Evidences provided by Vagarish

Evidence #1:

I don't see anything wrong with it The points made by the challenger don’t really apply in this situation: 1. The first one: “Zilliqa(ZIL) was an ERC20 token before its mainnet token launched and so are Aeternity(AE) or Wanchain(WAN). Will we allow tokens in the non-eth chain to be listed here due only to project owners expressing an intention to create an eth-based counterpart or only when that token is live on eth mainnet?” I don’t see how this point applies to the case in question. All the synths have always been only on eth and there have been no token swaps to other chains. On top of that we also do allow wrapped versions of non-eth tokens to be listed, in our case the tokens are already live on mainnet so I don’t see the point. 2. On the topic of contract addresses: “My stand to reject the listing is also supported by policy line#4 on the importance of checking contract addresses. There were many listing updates in the past for token contracts that were old/deprecated and replaced with a new listing with the new token contract.” This doesn’t apply in our case, it would be correct only if we already had a new version of these inverse synths, but we don’t. The synths submitted are the most recent versions of the token, and as such the one that should be listed in the TCR. This point can only be valid if and when a new version of these synths is live. 3. The challenger also says “Have you actually tried swapping any of these submitted frozen inverse synths to other synths? I did. And none of your submissions can be swapped, only iBTC- as what the synth monitoring link I sent was about.” The challenger is claiming that he tried swapping these inverse synths but was been unable to do so, I find that very hard to believe for a few reasons. First of all only people that already own the asset could have done the swap, as we saw in the previous pieces of evidence. The chances of the challenger having some are low, but if that was the case I am sure that he could point us to his wallet and transaction where he tried to do these swaps? But most importantly, if we go by SNX documentation the challenger claim is clearly false, since you can swap the assets back to other synths or sUSD even if frozen, otherwise what would be the point of such an asset that if the price moves too much you are stuck with it forever and unable to redeem it? SNX is clear on this, and quoting their documentation: “If it reaches either of its limits and gets frozen, it will no longer be able to be purchased on Synthetix.Exchange, but can still be traded for other Synths at its frozen value.” This leaves no doubts, the asset can still be redeemed for sUSD or swapped to other synths, the only frozen thing is its value and issuance. Once again you will find the evidence proving that you can in fact swap your inverse assets even if frozen in the attached document.

Evidence #2:

Absolutely wrong and the submitter can't even prove a single swap The context in that policy line refers to an event at present that wasn't the case during token submission. Zilliqa(ZIL) was an ERC20 token before its mainnet token launched and so are Aeternity(AE) or Wanchain(WAN). Will we allow tokens in the non-eth chain to be listed here due only to project owners expressing an intention to create an eth-based counterpart or only when that token is live on eth mainnet? My stand to reject the listing is also supported by policy line#4 on the importance of checking contract addresses. There were many listing updates in the past for token contracts that were old/deprecated and replaced with a new listing with the new token contract. So if you're submitting now an already considered deprecated contract and due delisting what good is it for Kleros Tokens Registry? Have you actually tried swapping any of these submitted frozen inverse synths to other synths? I did. And none of your submissions can be swapped, only iBTC- as what the synth monitoring link I sent was about.

Evidence #3:

My response to the challenger claims Here is some counterarguments to the challenger claims: 1. “The ‘token activity’ in the policy “Requests are not to be denied listing based on token creation date, token swap status (with non-ethereum chains), use case or token activity.” pertains to assets that were once actively traded but later gone inactive or abandoned.” From what I understand, this means that the policy does pertain to these inverse synths in question, since they were once actively traded and only recently got frozen? This point here is not really clear. 2. “It’s as if saying that adding 2017 dead ICO tokens now to the registry is considered valid - which doesn’t make sense.” If we follow the policy and the TCR precedents, there is no doubt that even 2017 dead ICO tokens can be added, since token activity, swap status or use case are not basis for rejection. This is a token registry, the fact that the tokens are not actively traded or inactive does not matter, as the policy explicitly says. 3. “The invalidity of these inverse tokens can also be confirmed here https://www.synthetix-monitoring.com/” What does “invalidity” mean in this case and what is this page supposed to prove? We already knew the tokens were frozen, as we can see on the page, but as said before this is not considered a basis for rejection in the official policy. 4. “Apparently you can’t swap it through Uniswap as the submitter claims, because only inverse BTC is the only inverse token that hasn’t “reached its limits and gets frozen”.” This is once again false, every single ethereum token can be swapped on uniswap if there is liquidity available. Now there is a very important point that has already been made in the previous piece of evidence that apparently went unnoticed to the challenger: the fact that the token is frozen only means that it’s price will not change on the SNX exchange and that new ones cannot be issued. The frozen tokens that are currently in circulation can still be traded for other synths, redeemed for sUSD or traded on secondary markets. This has already been proven in the previous piece of evidence as the official SNX documentation clearly says referring to inverse synths: “If it reaches either of its limits and gets frozen, it will no longer be able to be purchased on Synthetix.Exchange, but can still be traded for other Synths at its frozen value.” (proof of this can be found attached in the previous piece of evidence). So the claim by the challenger that these tokens can no longer be traded is false, otherwise people would find themselves stuck with a useless token after big price movements, unable to redeem or exchange it.

Evidence #4:

https://www.synthetix-monitoring.com/ The ‘token activity’ in the policy “Requests are not to be denied listing based on token creation date, token swap status (with non-ethereum chains), use case or token activity.” pertains to assets that were once actively traded but later gone inactive or abandoned. Examples in the registry are Formosa Financial(FMF) or CBDAO (SBREE), VisionX(VNX) etc. And so retaining inverse Synths in the registry that were once active upon submission clearly don’t set precedence to support the submitter’s understanding of this clause. It’s as if saying that adding 2017 dead ICO tokens now to the registry is considered valid - which doesn’t make sense. The invalidity of these inverse tokens can also be confirmed here https://www.synthetix-monitoring.com/. Apparently you can’t swap it through Uniswap as the submitter claims, because only inverse BTC is the only inverse token that hasn’t “reached its limits and gets frozen” These tokens are no longer coming back and were considered deprecated even before the submitter’s request to register them.

Evidence #5:

Why the submission should be accepted There are a few points to be made here, all of them are also valid for the 4 similar cases currently active in the token listing court: 1. First and most important, the TCR policy is clear in cases like this one: “Requests are not to be denied listing based on token creation date, token swap status (with non-ethereum chains), use case or token activity.” The policy clearly states that requests are not to be denied based on token activity, creation date, use case or swap status. Thus the fact that the token is currently frozen on the SNX exchange (main point of the challenger) cannot be a reason for rejection. This is a valid token on the ethereum network, if we follow the TCR policy (as we should) it can and should be added to the TCR. 2. The previous point alone would be enough to prove that the submission should be accepted, but there is more to be said: The challenger argues that the token cannot be traded and is useless in its current state, this is false. You can read on the official SNX pages referring to inverse synths: “If it reaches either of its limits and gets frozen, it will no longer be able to be purchased on Synthetix.Exchange, but can still be traded for other Synths at its frozen value.” (evidence for this is in the attached document) The only limitation is on new purchases, it can still be traded for other synths, traded on secondary markets (like uniswap) or redeemed for sUSD. It is by no means a “useless token” as the challenger says. 3. The precedents are clear, all the other SNX inverse synths are already listed on the TCR (the jurors can check for themselves by searching for “Synthetic Inverse” in the TCR). Not even a single one has been removed, even though some have been frozen for months. If all the submitted inverse synths have been accepted and are still listed in the TCR, even if frozen, what is the point of challenging the submission of the few missing ones? These three points are enough to prove that these submissions should be accepted, once they are we will have all of the SNX inverse synths listed on the TCR. In the meantime I will be waiting for the challenger to submit a counterargument, if there is any.

Evidence #6:

https://synthetix.exchange/#/synths attached screenshot of token status

Evidence #7:

Token challenge Trading of this asset is currently frozen and not possible to trade. No point adding it to the registry since it's in limbo before being deprecated or removed completely from synthetix exchange
Check this Case on Kleros Resolve