DireWolfM14,
I confirm receipt of the refund with thanks. Respectful feedback imho, this matter would have been resolved relatively quickly and easily if the original terms were observed in the first instance (as required by the terms themselves). The drama unnecessarily increased the impact on myself and everyone involved. In all other respects you were faultless, professional and respectful throughout and, for what it's worth, my bottom line is: while I'm unlikely to ever have a further need, I will keep you in mind, gladly recommend, and use your service again should the opportunity ever arise (and if you would have me).

LoyceV,
I appreciated your input and see why people speak about you with high regard.

AHOYBRAUSE,
I appreciate you also, and your passion. Of course, I agree with most of what you'd said. I didn't feel I could engage with you or get into many the those points myself as I was trying to contain issues to the original terms. However, I did and do appreciate it.

For anyone who cares (and I sincerely believe none of us should),
FatMan's last post is pathetic, demonstrably dishonest, and pathalogical... as he has been throughout. I'm glad that I can now totally ignore that toxic cloud.


The fact is, no matter how hysterical FM gets in his tearful and dishonest manipulations of the narrative, I never said anything that could remotely be construed as a 'threat' to DW or anyone else. I'm sure DW would confirm this himself (not that I'd ever ask that of DW because it's completely unnecessary). 'Privately' I only ever communicated with DW via brief messages in a 3-way telegram chat (that included FM). I'm happy to provide the video recording of the full telegram chat to anyone who doubts that FM is simply lying yet again. I've also uploaded the telegram-video to the google drive bet folder (I believe FM posted the link to the folder previously, I never posted the link and don't intend to but people seem to have accessed the videos of our discord PMs, so if you still have the link the telegram-video is now there. If you want proof FM is lying, yet again, see my last few posts to DW in the video).

Ultimately I take personal responsibility and a lesson from all this, perhaps best articulated by the saying: "you lay down with pigs, and you get muddy".

The fact is, the bet was always -EV for me, even if I won. I stand to make far more money 'betting' on the same outcome in standard trading strategies on exchanges. I routinely trade with high leverage and can also 'flip' my position whichever way the wind blows. As noted directly to FM weeks ago in our recorded discord PMs (during a rare amicable exchange where it seemed we would reconcile), I only took the bet because I believe he is a toxic bully and was having an undue impact on many people and things. I've always had a problem with bullies and I simply decided I would stand up to him. I wanted to draw his attention onto me because (imho) I can 'handle' him better than others who he thuggishly 'walks over'. (For example, it's near certain that poor Double Eagle will not be getting a refund from his similar bet with FM, because he foolishly trusted FM to hold the funds). I did not presume that FMs dishonesty would extend to countless attempts to manipulate me, or the situation, or public and pathetic attempts to re-write terms after they were agreed, or making multiple fake accounts, or many other things I could note. I was wrong.

I apologise sincerely to everyone for the drama, I made genuine extensive efforts to reconcile with FM before appealing to the escrow providers.
Thereafter I did my best to simplify matters and contain the dispute to the original terms (as required by the terms themselves).

My thanks and best wishes to you all.

Once again, you astonishing jerk, only you engage in this pathetic and childish behaviour, all the while crying victim with incredible hypocricy (which you do consistently, with completely unrelated people and things, it is pathalogical, and truly boggles my mind).

I have no association whatsoever with the AHOYBRAUSE account, and no prior history whatsoever with BitCoin Talk, or (so far as I know) anyone here.

Rather, you simply can't deal with the fact that other people independently see who and what you are.

Maybe reflect, learn and grow from the feedback (though that seems near-impossible given your character demonstrations to date). My feedback to you (in our discord PMs) is clearly consistent with countless independent sources who say the same things, as we're seeing here from AHOYBRAUSE. But... I know I'm wasting my breath at this point and will not engage with you further.

I just feel sorry for Double Eagle, who has a similar bet with you. No doubt you're currently screwing him in the same way you've tried with me.
And that poor guy trusted you to hold his bet money instead of using escrow.

LoyceV, I 100% agree with your post, I really appreciate your input and efforts to help. You need a terra station wallet to access the direct Terra Classic governance link, but I put other easily-verified references in my earlier posts (I think on Zazarb's thread) and any google search will confirm the reduction to 0.2% from multiple points.

AHOYBRAUSE, I've appreciated and agreed with your posts. You repeatedly and independently raised points and made observations and conclusions that are similar to my own, but I've not posted on many of these topics in a conscious effort to limit the irrelevant post-facto submissions and drama that FM has pursed at length (as noted I believe the impact on the escrow providers is unfair, and FM is ultimately trying to dishonestly claim victory by recasting the terms, confounding and embroiling this otherwise simple matter).

DireWolfM14, you'll no doubt note LoyceV's post is entirely consistent with, and a confirmation of, both the original terms and my previous posts on the matter.
Also, Zazarb has refunded.  




_________Limited response to FatMan's many posts

My further comment is irrelevant to the bet terms or refund request, but it may give some context to anyone 'taken in' by FatMan's comments. Everyone can see above that I've tried to stay away from responding to FatMan. In truth, I blocked him on discord some time ago and am near-entirely ignoring his posts in BitCoin Talk. Because, after my experiences with him, I have zero trust or time left for him. I only became aware of the following quote because I read AHOYBRUASE's reply to it:


Here are Facts:
FatMan was banned from Terra Rebels discord (for, well, being who he is). He thereafter created at least one (proven by FM himself and other sources) alt-account by the name 'Namtaf Arret' (FatMan Terra backwards). FM near-certainly created at least one more alt-account (exact same MO as the first), and I am confident there are others on the TR discord. FM used these accounts in part to mercilessly troll, spread false allegations, and generally harras me (on the TR discord) about the bet and LUNC generally. It is clear from my responses that, for a good while, I was not aware that these accounts were alt-FatMan-accounts, or that I was being trolled. Despite the toxic nature of the posts, I responded in good faith, as I would to any normal user. I can provide discord links to the exact instances, I further discussed this with FatMan weeks ago (in our recorded discord PMs), or lastly anyone joining the TR discord and searching my posts around mid-Sep will find similar proof.

In total I believe at least three FatMan-alt-accounts have been banned from TR discord for this or similar toxic behaviour, possibly more.

It speaks for itself doesn't it? What kind of child behaves this way? And then later engages in astonishing hypocrisy baselessly accusing me of the same thing and calling reasonable independent feedback "bad faith trolling"? And as if that wasn't enough, FatMan accuses me of mirroring his pathetic behaviour in a context where he is entirely aware that the AHOYBRAUSE account could not possibly be me.

Because: FatMan is aware (as per our recorded discord PMs) that I'd never even heard of the BitCoin Talk Forum when we arranged the escrow in September 2022.

So either...

I'm a criminal mastermind... I set up the AHOYBRAUSE account in Feb 2022, before LUNC even existed, before I'd ever met FatMan, or set up the bet, or had any contention with FatMan, and I prempted all this by lying to FatMan in our prior escrow discussions when I noted I'd never used BitCoin Talk, and I did all this why?... dishonest mastermind that I am... well... to claim a refund (and pay escrow fees)!

... it is either that, or ...

FatMan is lying to you all, yet again.

Zazarb: I confirm refund recieved, thank you. I appreciate your application of the original terms and once again sincerely apologise that a dispute and appeal to clause 6 was required. I've appreciated your service and would use it again. IMHO, the true test of character is not when things are 'easy' but when they are 'hard'. I feel you did right here, not only by an honourable transaction, but by avoiding drama. I would gladly recommend you and do business again.

FatMan: put simply, you are pathalogical.

Hi DireWolfM14,

I'll make a brief formal response in advance of a longer and more specific reply if this is not sufficient to resolve the issue.

Your below response is very problematic because you're demonstrably disregarding and recasting the original terms.

One example among several I could note:
You’ve ignored clause 6 by accepting influence from FatMan's post-facto submissions, and even matters completely external (i.e. CZs posts).

You’ve not only breached clause 6, but in expanding your focus beyond the original terms you are further being unfair by not considering my position (I’ve not given a full response to FMs submissions, rather I’ve limited replies and generally only noted that all such post-facto material must be ignored as mandated by the original terms).

Before I make any further submissions, I maintain my request for an immeidate refund.

If you maintain a refusal, in the first instance I formally request that you specifically explain:
How does your below quoted position/post respect clause 6 (which you agreed to adhere to from the outset):

[Emphasis added]

And thereafter clause 3:


The only way you can refuse the refund, is by recasting the original terms, because on their face they are clearly unequivocal as quoted above.

It is clear that clause three calls for an immediate refund if the tax is reduced below the threshold at any time prior to the bet being resolved.

Namely any time prior to 01/01/2023, as per clause 4:


I appreciate if you'd respond relatively promptly.

DireWolfM14, would you kindly respond.

Zazarb, would you kindly respond?

DireWolfM14:

Please consider the following.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1161170.msg61166801#msg61166801

Most notably quoted from the above:

Hi Zazarb,

I don't object to you taking time to let this matter 'ventilate' before deciding but rather I understand why you may feel that approach is prudent.

I think it would help to limit drama/debate if you could, in the least, clarify by reply:

1. Will you refuse/ignore any submissions external to the original terms, as mandated by the original terms (i.e. will you uphold or disregard clause 6)?

2. Can you provide some guideance or ETA on your decision regarding the refund?



_______Further brief context regarding FatMans post-facto submissions and the 0.2% change

Given the dispute, the following should rightly be irrelevant based on the original terms clauses 3 and 6.
I offer it only because you appear to be somewhat 'drawn in' by FatMan's post-facto submissions.

Please consider:
- The change to 0.2% isn't just that.
- If you read proposal 5234 you'll see it (foolishly in my view) bundled in a 10% payment to nondescript LUNC developers
- This means the bet is no longer just a question of "will CEX burn off-chain?"

The context has dramatically changed and it is now a question of:

"will CEX burn off-chain and will CEX siphon off 10% of the tax revenue payment to a development funding wallet for nondescript parties and purposes."

I think this change dramatically changes the context in a way that dramatically disadvantages me. I spoke publicly against the 10% developer funding being 'bundled in' and voted against the proposal. While I continue to strongly note that all such detail should be rightly irrelevant in deciding the refund (due to clauses 3 and 6) if I'm to respond to FatMan one of the things I will do to demonstrate that I'm being genuine is to show I publicly spoke and voted against the bundling (or rather bungling) '0.2% tax + 10% dev funding' proposal before requesting a refund etc (I've never had to find independent verification of an individual blockchain 'vote' transaction before but I presume it can be done).

Imho, the proposal dramatically reduces the chance that CEX will adopt off-chain burns because it now requires CEX to agree to not just one, but two historic 'firsts', one of which is very obtuse. I believe the 10% dev funding aspect would set a murky precedent that CEX will strongly resist.

On top of all that (imho and as I've hinted previously) FatMan has proved himself to be a thoroughly untrustworthy bet-partner in various distinct and demonstrable ways in recent weeks. He has engaged in several public displays of overt dishonesty and toxic behaviour which I can and will prove if forced. However, again, you'll note I made little or no mention of this before now and I am still trying to avoid getting into that drama by simply noting only that the original terms should apply, as mandated by the original terms themselves.

My strongly preferred position remains simply that: Clauses 3 and 6 are absolutely definitive and the refund should be efficiently processed. Any ancillary statements, submissions, comments or drama are completely irrelevant and should be completely ignored by the escrow providers (including all my posts and all FatMan's posts).

While I'm still ignoring FatMan's google document (and barely skim-reading his forum posts) at the same time, and based on my experiences with him to date, I am 99% confident that FatMan has made no mention whatsoever of the '10% dev funding issues' throughout his lengthy post-facto submissions. That in itself should speak volumes on just how 'fair' or 'honest' he actually is. Put plainly, he's doing everything he can to dishonestly 'win', by contrast I'm only calling for a refund as is clearly provided in the original terms.


_______The bottom line remains:
 
The wording of clauses 3 and 6 is unequivocal.
All other issues, comments, and dramas, are ancillary and should rightly and efficiently be ignored by the escrow providers.

Please confirm your position on the refund as soon as possible, or in the least kindly answer the questions 1 and 2 noted above.

My sincere apologies and thanks again.

Hi Zazarb,

I'm intentionally not responding to FatMan at this point. Since my first post highlighting the possibilty of this dispute arising, I have limited the size of my posts and tried to keep comments specifically focused on the original agreed terms. I've done this out of respect for the terms themselves but also significantly respecting your time and intended role in any dispute (as defined in clause 6).

Briefly I can only assert that I find FatMan's attitude and posts consistently false, dishonest and toxic. One very brief example: FatMan insisted on the 0.9% threshold, it was entirely his invention and he wrote many of the clauses (and specifically carefully reviewed and agreed all clauses). His repeated suggestions to the contrary are flatly, demonstrably and intentionally dishonest. I take no joy in saying that but rather am doing everything I can to avoid proving this or drawing you further into this and other points.

However, if you rule to accept, or are otherwise visibly influenced by FatMans submissions (as you appear to be above, and as is specifically contrary to clause 6), and on that basis conclude that the refund will not be processed as is undoubtedly required at this point by the original terms (clause 3), I hope you understand that it is fair, and I will want, the opportunity to review and make a detailed response to FatMan various false narratives. As noted, I've still not read nor responded to his "arguments" posted in the above google document.

I hope it is sufficent to simply note again that clause 6 clearly empowers and requires you to refuse (or ignore) any post-facto discussion or submissions, but rather to 'determine the matter on your sole discretion' and 'rely on the original agreement as the sole basis for your decision' in any dispute.

On that basis, I maintain that clause 3 is unequivocal as you yourself appear to recognise above.

Again I am sincerely sorry that this dispute has arisen and requires your attention. I believe the matter can be efficiently and fairly concluded by containing it to the original terms, as is mandated by the original terms. I did make extensive genuine efforts to avoid the current situation and reach agreement and/or reconcile with FatMan before initiating the refund request or dipsute.

Hi Zazarb,

I regetfully and respectfully maintain my call for a refund.
Please provide your formal decision on the dispute in that respect.

I believe you must entirely ignore any post-facto submissions (i.e. FatMan's above "argument") in making your decision because:

[Emphasis added]

Prior to FatMan's submission you appeared to "rely on the agreement as the sole basis for your decision" and in that context (as required by clause 6) you did not appear to find the situation "confusing and complicated":


I agree with that opinion and imho the situation is very simple:
the tax was reduced to 0.2%, and clause 3 is unequivocal on what should happen


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've not read FatMan's above "argument" and sincerely hope to avoid having to read it or respond. At this point I'm confident I would find it deeply problematic at best (but more likely flatly dishonest). It would also take a lot of time to put together an appropriate response, and that is both unfair on me and unfair on the escrow providers (for the modest fee you receive). Neither you nor I should be expected to read or write lenghty submissions and again the original agreement sought to avoid exactly this situation if a dispute arose by limiting any dispute to the "sole discretion" of the escrow providers "relying on the original agreement as the sole basis for their decision". I really would prefer to avoid writing, and you to avoid reading, my response to whatever (pleasant sounding but certain nonsense) FatMan has posted above.

Regetfully and respectfully I'm asking for your formal decision and invoking clauses 3 and 6. I maintain my call for a refund, and your formal decision, 'relying on the agreement as the sole basis for your decision,' as mandated in the original terms.

My apologies and thanks again.

Thanks Zazarb.

Is it right to presume from the above that you will now process the refunds?

I'll reserve (and hope to entirely avoid) any further comment at this point respecting your time.

DireWolfM14, noted with thanks.

In respect of any other aspect I am only repeating the same:
FatMan's repeated (and in my considered view intentionally dishonest) attempts to secure post-facto debate or submissions must rightly be ignored and/or not allowed. The original terms (see clauses 3 and 6) were agreed after a long process and are unequivocal on both the trigger for a 'refund' and the fact that the original terms are the 'sole basis' for any dispute determination.

It is further plainly unfair that, as part of the modest transaction fee, you should be imposed upon with any further debate or submissions (beyond what is strictly necessary in the application of the original agreed terms) particularly when the original terms specifically and undeniably addressed and sought to avoid that possibility.

My apologies and thanks again.

Hi Zarzarb,

In an effort to keep this simple, it is now confirmed that:

- Terra Classic governance has altered the on-chain burn tax to be less than 0.9%
- There is a dispute  

This invokes clauses 3 and 6. Quoting the original terms:


[emphasis added]

In the event of dispute, no opinions, interpretations or further submissions from FatMan or myself should be considered as stipulated in the original terms.
Please determine decide the matter 'on your sole discretion' and 'relying on the original agreement as the sole basis for decision'.

Please confirm your intended action and decision in due course by reply.

I sincerely regret that it is necessary to invoke clause 6 and your intervention.
I exhaused extensive genuine efforts to resolve the matter with FM before posting.

Many thanks

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 deviation from the original terms.


Please confirm your decision and intended action in due course by reply.

Hi Zazarb,

I believe you need a terra station wallet/account to see the proposals.

However, the proposal outcome can be verified by other many sources, for example here:
https://cosmosrun.info/terra-classic/gov/5234

Or google search "LUNC proposal 5234":
https://www.google.com/search?q=LUNC+proposal+5234

FatMan has noted he will initiate a dispute as anticipated in my prior post (quoted below).
I presume he will confirm this by reply soon.

He's already confirmed this with the other provider here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5413494.msg61146400#msg61146400

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 including his actions under the alias 'Namtaf Arret' and other instances. The terms are clear, a decision in any dispute should be on the sole basis of the terms themselves.

Please refer to my prior posts above but more than anything, just note there is a dispute and clause 6 clearly articulates how that should be handled.

It is unfair and specifically contrary to the original terms that you, the escrow provider, would be draw into any debate or take any further submissions whatsoever other than the original terms.

DireWolfM14 please make your decision as instructed by the terms without taking consideration for any aspects other than the terms themselves.

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:

I also note clause 6:
[Emphasis added]

zazarb kindly confirm by reply that the refunds will be processed and approximately when the transfers will be completed.

Many thanks

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:

I also note again clause 6:
[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.

Massdamer, I also appreciate your interest and well wishes.

FatMan and all who may be following:
I request we keep discussion in this thread to the absolute essentials only.
The primary purpose of this thread is to publicly record the terms etc and communicate with the escrow provider.
The escrow provider must monitor this thread. We should keep any impact on their time to a minimum.

Of course, feel free to start up another thread or discussion anywhere (PM me if you want me to be aware of it).