 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: « 1 [2]
|
|
Again, the void clause referred to the burn tax in its proposal phase, as that's when the bet was made. Your logic would be correct if the bet had been placed after implementation, but it was placed before. Additionally, I have provided contextual evidence proving that this is the correct interpretation.
DW has helped me moderate a bet before. We have no "relationship," paid or otherwise. He is a neutral, trusted party. My request to increase the escrow fee stands regardless of whether I win or not, so I'm not sure how doing so is in my favour. It's out of courtesy. Also, respectfully, "$200" is not a large sum for any of the parties involved. If there was some sort of incentive or bribe, I assure you that it would be much larger.
I'd like to request that you allow the involved parties to speak without interruptions. The situation is already confusing enough as is and we don't need to add more fuel to the fire. Thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
If you understand where I'm coming from, then surely you can see that the matter isn't nearly as clear as you're making it out to be. I have provided plenty of contextual evidence proving that the void term referred to the burn tax in its proposal phase. Terra governance is still actively signalling for exchanges to implement the 1.2% burn tax (relevant due to the proven common intention behind the term).
I find it a little suspicious that a fresh account with one post awakens out of the blue to mount this odd offensive. Given the likely bad faith nature of this request, I wouldn't be surprised if this was an astroturfing attempt. Regardless, this is a matter between nubcake, myself, and the escrowers.
Implying that escrowers could be "lured" by small bribes is offensive to everyone involved. I believe both escrowers are neutral and objective. Given the scope creep, I find it fair to increase their fee by a little bit. This will, of course, be my request regardless of whether or not they vote in my favour. If I was interested in bribing anyone, which I am not, I would have unilaterally offered money in private, which I have most certainly not done. (Under normal circumstances, I would have messaged nubcake about this privately, but he has blocked me on Discord.)
Agreements in good faith are about the meeting of the minds, and the fact that the bet should continue until formal resolution has more than sufficiently been proven.
|
|
|
|
The situation is confusing and complicated..
@nubcake_MeoW_ since your original agreement has a some conflict between clause, maybe this proposal of FatManTerrais fair enough for you..
I believe my solution is the fairest way. Although I believe I have sufficiently proven that my interpretation of the clause is correct, I am willing to add significant concessions to remain in line with what I believe to be the true spirit of our agreement even though it is at my detriment. This would be my recommendation. If you agree, let us know that this is your final decision and we can consider the matter resolved right away. If you're still unsure, you are welcome to copy DW's decision. I apologize for the confusing situation. I strongly object to opening this up to post-facto 'arguements' or 'submissions' from the participants because we've clearly been unable to resolve this ourselves and it will obviously lead to long and likely fruitless debates but more importantly this should not be done because it was specifically excluded in the original terms (clause 6).
I'm not submitting new terms, though. I agree that the original terms should be upheld. There is a disagreement regarding the very meaning of one of the terms, so I believe outlining the correct interpretation of said term with context is in order. Bear in mind that you are the one who recorded the public bet terms and saved them, presumably for a situation like this where clarity over a term is necessary. I may have considered this a genuine miscommunication if you weren't begging arbitrators to not read the comprehensive context behind the formation of our terms (and dismissing my arguments without even reading them). This move, to me, shows bad faith and indicates that you are trying to exploit a potential loophole because you thought you might get away with it. The terms are clear; I have outlined why my interpretation is reasonable and I don't feel the need to add more to the discussion. I agree that long-winded debate isn't in anyone's interest here. You have submitted your case for why you believe your interpretation is correct, and I have done the same for my side. This is how the arbitration process has always worked. I think we should let the escrowers come to an arbitration decision. I'm not interested in extending this unnecessary situation & clogging up these threads based on an unreasonable refund request. (If you agree, I would also like to tip both escrow providers an additional 0.01 BTC each from the bet pool as this service has creeped beyond its expected scope.) |
|
|
|
Here is my argument for why the bet should continue until formal resolution is met as per the terms: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FbP3PlREppO8gXzvb_qcKC-N4rHpzXM15XB2oCcFoWA/edit?usp=sharingI have also included evidence that can be used as context to better interpret the wording of the terms and the intention behind them. Based on the above, I believe the correct decision here would be to continue the bet either until an off-chain burn tax is implemented, Terra on-chain governance signals to repeal the request to exchanges, or Jan 1. I have nothing further to say and you are welcome to make your decision. I trust that you will make the right choice based on the facts. Alternatively, if you wish to follow DW's decision when he makes it, that works too. Either way is fine by me. Thanks for your time. |
|
|
|
Hello Gentlemen,
I will be taking a close look at this throughout the day, but please do not expect an opinion today. If I have any questions I'll reach out to both of you here or on the Telegram chat. I'm all about transparency, so I would appreciate any communication to be done here in public, in a PM discussion between the three of us, or on the Telegram group chat.
I would also like your permission to ask questions of other members here on the forum whom I trust to remain neutral have demonstrated rational judgement. If I do reach out to others, I'll disclose their usernames as having contributed to my opinion.
I'm in no rush. Take your time. Feel free to ask whoever you like. Tomorrow I'll post some additional context regarding the spirit of our bet in the three-way chat along with my arguments to help inform your decision. Bit of a busy day today. |
|
|
|
|
I would highly recommend the reviewal of formal arguments through an arbitration process before coming to a final verdict, as I think the context makes it clear that the void clause referred to the burn tax in its proposal phase, not after it had already been activated.
That being said, if you determine that voiding the bet is appropriate here, I won't argue and agree to comply with your decision.
Thanks for your time.
|
|
|
|
|
Hey zazarb. nubcake is attempting to get his money back before the bet has officially resolved (no exchange has implemented the off-chain burn tax yet). The void clause referred to the tax in its proposal phase. If the burn tax was removed or reduced at this stage, the bet would be voided. After our initial agreement, the 1.2% burn tax was activated on-chain, thus activating our bet. Although the written term leaves some ambiguity, the spirit and intention behind the terms is evident. The timing of the agreement (pre-activation) makes the intention clear as well.
As we have a disagreement concerning the interpretation of this term, I have requested an arbitration decision from DW, the second escrow provider. I asked nubcake whether he would like to open a separate arbitration process with you or roll with DW's decision for both sets of coins. He refused to answer and blocked me on Discord.
In my opinion, the simplest way for you would be to follow DW's decision on the matter. If DW decides to refund the bet, you can do the same here, and if he decides to keep the bet open until it formally resolves, you can follow suit as well. This way, you won't have to review our arguments. Alternatively, you are welcome to arbitrate independently. I am fine with whatever you and nubcake are okay with.
Apologies for the inconvenience.
|
|
|
|
DireWolfM14 - note I am addressing yourself, not FatMan. I see no benefit in responding to him. I've exhausted all such efforts. - It is confirmed there is a dispute. - The agreed terms clearly articulated how a dispute should be administered. - There should be no alterations from the original terms. 6. In the event of a dispute, the escrow provider will determine the ‘winner’ on their sole discretion but must rely on this agreement as the sole basis for their decision. Please confirm your decision and intended action in due course by reply. Dispute resolution involves formal submission of arguments from both sides... That has not happened yet. Moreover, you can't use the term in dispute to give yourself money before the bet has resolved, because it's literally the term being disputed. DW: I trust your judgement and will honour your final decision. Whether you think formal arbitration is appropriate here or not, I will comply with your verdict without question or complaint. |
|
|
|
DireWolfM14, I've exhausted extensive efforts to resolve this directly with Fatman. Put simply I've given him every chance but find him to be a very dishonest individual. If we are to invoke 'discord discussions' there will be lengthy submissions including several verifiable instances of Fatman's dishonesty which including his actions under the alias 'Namtaf Arret' and other instances. The terms are abundantly clear, including the fact that a decision in any dispute should be on the sole basis of the terms themselves. As noted here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5413494.msg60963629#msg60963629It is plainly inappropriate that (FatMan) would seek any post-facto debate, submissions or alterations in respect of the terms, and/or to potentially seek to impose the same on the escrow providers. I also believe it is unfair on the escrow providers to draw them into any debate or further submissions whatsoever other than the application of the original terms. DireWolfM14 please make your decision as instructed by the terms without taking consideration for any aspects other than the terms themselves. I don't think there's any utility in bringing personal squabbles here. I also believe your actions are in bad faith (eg. recording the public bet discussion for context, attempting to exploit a loophole, and then blocking the review of that very context to inform interpretation of the final terms because you believe it will be advantageous to you), but there's no need for me to rehash all of that. Your "extensive efforts to resolve" consisted of demanding money that you are not owed, which would not be correct of me to concede to. The arbitration process is quite straightforward. You submit your interpretation and why it's correct, I submit mine, and the arbitrator makes a verdict. I have encouraged the use of this process throughout. I have also attempted to iron out the specifics of the process (deciding who to use etc.) in private to no avail. Please decide who you would like to use as an arbitrator (DW, DW & zazarb, or a panel of three, or some other option you see fit). We can take it from there. I have no strong preference as I'm certain any reasonable, neutral party will come to the same verdict. |
|
|
|
LUNC (Terra Classic) governance proposal #5234 has passed reducing the tax from 1.2% to 0.2% (see https://station.terra.money/proposal/5234) Clause 3 states: 3. If Terra Classic governance alters the on-chain burn tax to be less than 0.9%, or removes it entirely, the bet is considered void and both parties are refunded less an equal contribution to the escrow fees. I also note again clause 6: 6. In the event of a dispute, the escrow provider will determine the ‘winner’ on their sole discretion but must rely on this agreement as the sole basis for their decision. [Emphasis added] For further detail please see my earlier posts above. DireWolfM14 kindly confirm by reply that the refunds will be processed according to the agreed terms. As per our lengthy public discussion over Discord confirming the nature and spirit of the bet, which you recorded and saved for clarification purposes, this clause applied to the pending proposal (as the bet was placed while the tax was still in its proposal phase). The tax had not yet been implemented: our agreement was that if the burn tax was somehow reduced or removed before implementation, the bet would be void. It was not an indefinite carte blanche pass for you to use as a loophole. A few days after the original agreement, the burn tax went into affect (unchanged at 1.2%), thus activating the bet. There is also on-chain governance signalling for the off-chain burn tax from exchanges, which was a part of our discussion and can speak to intention. Based on the above, I disagree with your interpretation of this clause and believe my interpretation is correct. Now that the bet has been activated, funds can only reach your wallet once exchanges implement the 1.2% burn tax. If you disagree with my interpretation, I am happy to let a neutral arbitrator decide the outcome (as we previously discussed). I believe them viewing further context of our discussion, which you presumably saved for this sort of event, would help bring clarity. This context can speak to the spirit & intention behind our terms (if we're both acting in good faith, informing their decision can only help, allowing them to interpret the terms correctly), but I agree that the final decision should be made solely based on the listed terms, which still do not resolve in a tie/win yet as described in the first paragraph. |
|
|
|
Bet update, if anyone's interested: the CEO of Binance just confirmed in a Twitter AMA that Binance will not be implementing a burn tax on internal spot trades. Edit: It now looks like Binance will give users the option to burn their own coins if they so choose, and if it hits a 50% quorum, the tax will be implemented as a mandatory tax on all LUNC trading. Things just got a lot more interesting!  |
|
|
|
|
Today I sought clarification with the counterparty regarding one of the bet terms due to the potential of ambiguous interpretation that I did not notice before (a friend brought it up to me). At this time I have no intention of raising a dispute of any kind. If a dispute does arise, I trust the escrower's ability to adjudicate the matter fairly based on the evidence that will be provided and will not dispute their final decision.
|
|
|
|
Money deposited: https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/25dc06e2a9f978a3382214e7d1d37eb29727f36c38dbbbeaf5aee14c2d12e1caMany thanks to both of you. If I win, please pay out to bc1qj2r3ual3ve7n5q4wkgnf87ct673zk4ww56ydvn (if the two of us don't sort it out for some reason). Under no circumstances will I change this address. If I attempt to, assume my account to be compromised. It would also be useful if you could post your own address here for us to forward your fee to, although we can do that later if you prefer. Up to you. Good luck, nubcake! Although it's starting to look like I'm the one who's going to need luck  |
|
|
|
|
Many thanks to both of you.
When I win, please pay out to bc1qj2r3ual3ve7n5q4wkgnf87ct673zk4ww56ydvn.
Under no circumstances will I change this address. If I attempt to, assume my account to be compromised.
Good luck!
|
|
|
|
DireWolfM14 thought people might like to cast a vote on the outcome hence the poll. Purpose of this post is mainly to confirm the Escrow transaction with DireWolfM14. - Escrow providers are Zarzarb and DireWolfM14, each to hold 2BTC, being 1BTC each from FatMan and nubcake_MeoW_. - Zarzarbs escrow already confirmed and funds paid. - Funds are yet to be sent to DireWolfM14, pending confirmations by reply to this message. Bet terms: @FatMan, you’ve offered a bet, and I @nubcake_MeoW_ accepted, that we both contribute 2BTC with the winner taking all proceeds (4BTC minus escrow fees) The bet originated as a response to your following statement 08/09/2022 on TR discord: No major exchange will ever support a 1.2% burn tax for off-chain trades. It will simply never happen and there's no point talking about it because it's a silly idea. If you disagree, I am happy to bet on it. You maintain the statement will prove true, and if it does you win the bet. I maintain the statement will not prove true, and if it does not, I win the bet. For clarity on both sides, we have discussed the key points and terms in detail and agreed as follows: 1. ‘Major exchanges’ are defined by you as: Binance, Kraken, KuCoin, Huobi, Coinbase, FTX, Gemini 2. A burn tax is defined as a mandatory >0.9% fee taken out of amounts traded on LUNC spot trading pairs with the intention of burning the proceeds. This definition only includes a tax levied on amounts traded internally on the exchange and does not include on-chain burns (ie. burns caused by withdrawals from or deposits to the exchange). Non-exhaustive examples of nubcake winning: - Binance increases their spot trading fee to >0.9% and forces it on users across all LUNC spot trades and sends it to the burn wallet. - Binance automatically deducts >0.9% of every LUNC purchase's proceeds to send to the burn wallet. - If the recent MEXC burn described in the following link had been implemented by one of the exchanges noted in this bet https://support.mexc.com/hc/en-001/articles/10122048174105. The spirit of the bet is that if someone trades $100 of LUNC, the exchange takes >$0.9 (this number is X) to burn and gives ($100 - X) to the user on the other end of the trade, regardless of how it is specifically implemented. 3. If Terra Classic governance alters the on-chain burn tax to be less than 0.9%, or removes it entirely, the bet is considered void and both parties are refunded less an equal contribution to the escrow fees. 4. The ‘burn tax’ must be announced by one of the above listed CEX before 01/01/2023 and implemented no later than 01/01/2024 for nubcake to ‘win’. If this does not occur FatMan ‘wins’. In the case that a ‘win’ becomes clearly apparent, or is otherwise agreed by the parties, the proceeds of the bet are to be immediately paid to the winning party, less any escrow fees which are to be taken from the proceeds. 5. The parties will organise separately the escrow arrangements and each pay their 1BTC into escrow within 4 days of the escrow arrangements being agreed. 6. In the event of a dispute, the escrow provider will determine the ‘winner’ on their sole discretion but must rely on this agreement as the sole basis for their decision. Here are the terms we both agreed to. The executive summary is if the Terra Classic chain implements a burn tax of 0.9% or higher per transaction, the bet becomes active - I win if no major exchange implements a burn tax on trades and nubcake wins if any major exchange does (refer to the above message for finer details). If the Terra Classic chain does not implement such a burn tax, the bet is voided (you can keep the escrow fee and return the bets to us). It's unlikely that there will be a dispute (it will be quite clear to both of us who won), but in the event that one of us acts in bad faith or if the outcome is ambiguous, please refer to the above message in order to determine who won. DireWolfM14, Fatman, please repond quoting this message to confirm details are accurate and your acceptance. Agreed multisig wallet for BTC deposits: bc1qnmt5q56rlftz9zuyh4kf8xx3yuvvux36q3n0vmw62v38mlv4v6aqv2pk0c My wallet address for payment in case of winning: 1MLnUWTYzvL1iqzC52H1ZD9c93s9TnFw82 Looks good to me! I agree. |
|
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Here will be the escrow agreement fort betting, between FatManTerra and nubcake_MeoW_ Terms of deal in quoted message: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1161170.msg60912731#msg60912731Escrow address: 1zazarbojD21aRu2dpFYz7KxFDKgwSDtK Participants please fund the above escrow address with 2 BTC( 1BTC each) Upon confirmation of winner and review , I will release a total of 2 BTC ( escrow fee 1% and transaction fee will be deducted) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: Keybase OpenPGP v2.1.13 Comment: https://keybase.io/cryptowsBcBAABCgAGBQJjHCbRAAoJEEesS+GBgNwF/aAIAL9SZ1XlSD1OJwlHCz6d/JCL nQ0fRD6FmuHZvwTqSDwXhek1Yefad/DaC12AXCx6NzKtt4BmrU1C4M0Iv3OEKtVi 75WqWboCoGxZbtCj/yRuBzeSMbz5MWKkYD/wWwAzJJ3gvFzfpdY0dbJ+8weQ85Ru iAvlv0pkbXrKqip+pc9CS9NujBMU1pwB6EEOLh87qTVqRV3KtX14grp9w45avcwF ANsiqv905Imrqz6QqEOfDovBWSYCoNc9wXDOMn24zLIDdFJA2OaVnizr/PZu+Nth kYS2v+phGZl/Lw1Hu1FXhA0KNSPJjOSNM4NFqxgAyVVYFRKHoKVjR8ieB8393DQ= =V9aN -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Signature verified and BTC sent: https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/ddb439f5c03a82a0273568411b0c222cb7e763574fdaf80adac161197fbfbf1bThank you. Confirmed as received Hey, the two of us would like to double up on the same bet. 2 BTC each instead of 1 BTC each. Would you be okay with that? (I'll send you an extra bitcoin and nubcake will send you a total of two.) Let me know. Thanks. yes, you can do it. Apologies, I jumped the gun on this one. nubcake would prefer for me to consult other escrow services to spread out counterparty risk, so we'll stick to the 1 BTC with you for now. If that doesn't pan out as expected, I will let you know. Sorry, hope that's okay. |
|
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Here will be the escrow agreement fort betting, between FatManTerra and nubcake_MeoW_ Terms of deal in quoted message: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1161170.msg60912731#msg60912731Escrow address: 1zazarbojD21aRu2dpFYz7KxFDKgwSDtK Participants please fund the above escrow address with 2 BTC( 1BTC each) Upon confirmation of winner and review , I will release a total of 2 BTC ( escrow fee 1% and transaction fee will be deducted) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: Keybase OpenPGP v2.1.13 Comment: https://keybase.io/cryptowsBcBAABCgAGBQJjHCbRAAoJEEesS+GBgNwF/aAIAL9SZ1XlSD1OJwlHCz6d/JCL nQ0fRD6FmuHZvwTqSDwXhek1Yefad/DaC12AXCx6NzKtt4BmrU1C4M0Iv3OEKtVi 75WqWboCoGxZbtCj/yRuBzeSMbz5MWKkYD/wWwAzJJ3gvFzfpdY0dbJ+8weQ85Ru iAvlv0pkbXrKqip+pc9CS9NujBMU1pwB6EEOLh87qTVqRV3KtX14grp9w45avcwF ANsiqv905Imrqz6QqEOfDovBWSYCoNc9wXDOMn24zLIDdFJA2OaVnizr/PZu+Nth kYS2v+phGZl/Lw1Hu1FXhA0KNSPJjOSNM4NFqxgAyVVYFRKHoKVjR8ieB8393DQ= =V9aN -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Signature verified and BTC sent: https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/ddb439f5c03a82a0273568411b0c222cb7e763574fdaf80adac161197fbfbf1bThank you. Confirmed as received Hey, the two of us would like to double up on the same bet. 2 BTC each instead of 1 BTC each. Would you be okay with that? (I'll send you an extra bitcoin and nubcake will send you a total of two.) Let me know. Thanks. |
|
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Here will be the escrow agreement fort betting, between FatManTerra and nubcake_MeoW_ Terms of deal in quoted message: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1161170.msg60912731#msg60912731Escrow address: 1zazarbojD21aRu2dpFYz7KxFDKgwSDtK Participants please fund the above escrow address with 2 BTC( 1BTC each) Upon confirmation of winner and review , I will release a total of 2 BTC ( escrow fee 1% and transaction fee will be deducted) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: Keybase OpenPGP v2.1.13 Comment: https://keybase.io/cryptowsBcBAABCgAGBQJjHCbRAAoJEEesS+GBgNwF/aAIAL9SZ1XlSD1OJwlHCz6d/JCL nQ0fRD6FmuHZvwTqSDwXhek1Yefad/DaC12AXCx6NzKtt4BmrU1C4M0Iv3OEKtVi 75WqWboCoGxZbtCj/yRuBzeSMbz5MWKkYD/wWwAzJJ3gvFzfpdY0dbJ+8weQ85Ru iAvlv0pkbXrKqip+pc9CS9NujBMU1pwB6EEOLh87qTVqRV3KtX14grp9w45avcwF ANsiqv905Imrqz6QqEOfDovBWSYCoNc9wXDOMn24zLIDdFJA2OaVnizr/PZu+Nth kYS2v+phGZl/Lw1Hu1FXhA0KNSPJjOSNM4NFqxgAyVVYFRKHoKVjR8ieB8393DQ= =V9aN -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Signature verified and BTC sent: https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/ddb439f5c03a82a0273568411b0c222cb7e763574fdaf80adac161197fbfbf1bThank you. |
|
|
|
@FatMan, you’ve offered a bet, and I @nubcake_MeoW_ accepted, that we both contribute 1BTC with the winner taking all proceeds (2BTC minus escrow fees) The bet originated as a response to your following statement 08/09/2022 on TR discord: No major exchange will ever support a 1.2% burn tax for off-chain trades. It will simply never happen and there's no point talking about it because it's a silly idea. If you disagree, I am happy to bet on it. You maintain the statement will prove true, and if it does you win the bet. I maintain the statement will not prove true, and if it does not, I win the bet. For clarity on both sides, we have discussed the key points and terms in detail and agreed as follows: 1. ‘Major exchanges’ are defined by you as: Binance, Kraken, KuCoin, Huobi, Coinbase, FTX, Gemini 2. A burn tax is defined as a mandatory >0.9% fee taken out of amounts traded on LUNC spot trading pairs with the intention of burning the proceeds. This definition only includes a tax levied on amounts traded internally on the exchange and does not include on-chain burns (ie. burns caused by withdrawals from or deposits to the exchange). Non-exhaustive examples of nubcake winning: - Binance increases their spot trading fee to >0.9% and forces it on users across all LUNC spot trades and sends it to the burn wallet. - Binance automatically deducts >0.9% of every LUNC purchase's proceeds to send to the burn wallet. - If the recent MEXC burn described in the following link had been implemented by one of the exchanges noted in this bet https://support.mexc.com/hc/en-001/articles/10122048174105. The spirit of the bet is that if someone trades $100 of LUNC, the exchange takes >$0.9 (this number is X) to burn and gives ($100 - X) to the user on the other end of the trade, regardless of how it is specifically implemented. 3. If Terra Classic governance alters the on-chain burn tax to be less than 0.9%, or removes it entirely, the bet is considered void and both parties are refunded less an equal contribution to the escrow fees. 4. The ‘burn tax’ must be announced by one of the above listed CEX before 01/01/2023 and implemented no later than 01/01/2024 for nubcake to ‘win’. If this does not occur FatMan ‘wins’. In the case that a ‘win’ becomes clearly apparent, or is otherwise agreed by the parties, the proceeds of the bet are to be immediately paid to the winning party, less any escrow fees which are to be taken from the proceeds. 5. The parties will organise separately the escrow arrangements and each pay their 1BTC into escrow within 4 days of the escrow arrangements being agreed. 6. In the event of a dispute, the escrow provider will determine the ‘winner’ on their sole discretion but must rely on this agreement as the sole basis for their decision. Here are the terms we both agreed to. The executive summary is if the Terra Classic chain implements a burn tax of 0.9% or higher per transaction, the bet becomes active - I win if no major exchange implements a burn tax on trades and nubcake wins if any major exchange does (refer to the above message for finer details). If the Terra Classic chain does not implement such a burn tax, the bet is voided (you can keep the escrow fee and return the bets to us). It's unlikely that there will be a dispute (it will be quite clear to both of us who won), but in the event that one of us acts in bad faith or if the outcome is ambiguous, please refer to the above message in order to determine who won. If this works for you, please post your address. nubcake will post here as well to confirm their account. We will send the money to you within four days from the time you post your address. Thank you. |
|
|
|
|
Hello!
I am looking for an escrow service. I am betting that certain exchanges won't implement a certain policy (namely a 1.2% burn tax on LUNC trades). The other party is betting at least one exchange will implement such a policy before Jan 1 2023. We are looking to bet 1 BTC each. The winner will receive 2 BTC (minus escrow fees).
Would you be willing to escrow such a deal? If so, what would your fee be?
If you are willing to do this, let me know!
Thank you.
FatMan
|
|
|
|
|
