 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: « 1 [2]
|
Confirmation of final payment of the bet: https://blockchain.coinmarketcap.com/address/bitcoin/bc1qnmt5q56rlftz9zuyh4kf8xx3yuvvux36q3n0vmw62v38mlv4v6aqv2pk0cToday 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.
[Emphasis added] Again the agreement is clear: 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] There should be nothing further 'provided' or accepted by the escrow providers in respect of the agreement terms. It is plainly inappropriate that you 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. |
|
|
|
Hi Zarzarb, Noting only for future reference at this time: In the last 24 hours Fatman has informed me, for the first time, that he intends to initiate a dispute in respect of the application of clause 3, should application of the clause become necessary. Specifically he has indicated that he intends to claim victory, and full payment of the bet, should the tax be reduced by LUNC governance vote below the 0.9% threshold, or cancelled entirely, between 20/09/2022 and 01/01/2023. I strongly object to this and maintain it is an attempt to alter the original agreement. As such, there is a possible dispute looming. No further action is required right now. At this moment it is possible (and my strong hope) that the bet can be concluded without needing to 'test' the application of clause 3. This will be the case if the tax is not reduced below 0.9% or cancelled by LUNC governance before 01/01/2023. Fatman has confirmed today that there remains agreement between us in respect of all other clauses. I want to highight clause 6 which states: 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] In the event of dispute, escrow providers should rely on the original terms as the "sole basis for their decision" without taking further submissions from Fatman or myself. I regret that it seems necessary to note this item at this time. Thank you Hi Zazarb, I've noted Fatman's below post and I agree. Many thanks @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. Quoted |
|
|
|
Noting only for future reference at this time: In the last 24 hours Fatman has informed me, for the first time, that he intends to initiate a dispute in respect of the application of clause 3, should application of the clause become necessary. Specifically he has indicated that he intends to claim victory, and full payment of the bet, should the tax be reduced by LUNC governance vote below the 0.9% threshold, or cancelled entirely, between 20/09/2022 and 01/01/2023. I strongly object to this and maintain it is an attempt to alter the original agreement. As such, there is a possible dispute looming. No further action is required right now. At this moment it is possible (and my strong hope) that the bet can be concluded without needing to 'test' the application of clause 3. This will be the case if the tax is not reduced below 0.9% or cancelled by LUNC governance before 01/01/2023. Fatman has confirmed today that there remains agreement between us in respect of all other clauses. I want to highight clause 6 which states: 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] In the event of dispute, escrow providers should rely on the original terms as the "sole basis for their decision" without taking further submissions from Fatman or myself. I regret that it seems necessary to note this item at this time. Thank you |
|
|
|
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  Quoting for deposit address verification |
|
|
|
Interesting bet! I'm not voting, cause I have no idea what centralized exchanges do. My take is they'll do anything if it's profitable.
Quoting so it won't be edited. Good luck to both!
Thanks for you help LoyceV, much appreciated. Thanks for confirming FM and DW.  |
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
Regarding the possible increase, coming back to you on it: we decided to split the escrow between two providers to spread the risk given the size of the transaction.
|
|
|
|
Hi Zazarb, I've noted Fatman's below post and I agree. Many thanks @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. |
|
|
|
|
