🌟🌟🌟🌟✨ zazarb's Quick-Loans & Escrow 🌟🌟🌟🌟✨

[robridgesave]

Loan Amount: 0.25 BTC
Reason for Taking out a Loan: The reason for the loan is to purchase this tickets https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5414532 to leave Russia as soon as possible
Amount to be repaid: 0.27 BTC
Repayment Date: 26 September 2022 when I receive my salary
Type of Collateral: None
Bitcoin Address: 3Kxdbq8BhRg6A4bsmUjyCv9b6UN5jbYeEM

[zazarb]

Loan Amount: 0.25 BTC
Reason for Taking out a Loan: The reason for the loan is to purchase this tickets https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5414532 to leave Russia as soon as possible
Amount to be repaid: 0.27 BTC
Repayment Date: 26 September 2022 when I receive my salary
Type of Collateral: None
Bitcoin Address: 3Kxdbq8BhRg6A4bsmUjyCv9b6UN5jbYeEM

Denied

[Dabs]

Loan Amount: 0.5 BTC
Reason for Taking out a Loan: Personal
Amount to be repaid: 0.605
Repayment Date: December 31 2022 (3 months or sooner)
Bitcoin address: bc1q0m770s58x06rqkvyvlcxujpy039uue0m0nszgs

Signed message:

Code:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256


This is Dabs, today is September 27 2022 and I ask a loan from zazarb in 3 months period with repayment of 0.605 BTC.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=E6LR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[zazarb]

Loan Amount: 0.5 BTC
Reason for Taking out a Loan: Personal
Amount to be repaid: 0.605
Repayment Date: December 31 2022 (3 months or sooner)
Bitcoin address: bc1q0m770s58x06rqkvyvlcxujpy039uue0m0nszgs

Signed message:

Code:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256


This is Dabs, today is September 27 2022 and I ask a loan from zazarb in 3 months period with repayment of 0.605 BTC.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=E6LR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Amount has been sent, please repay to following address 1BxrYeixq8wTq3mVkvZEuepQVidA9g3fh7

[nubcake_MeoW_]

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 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]

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

Many 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#msg60912731

Escrow 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/crypto

wsBcBAABCgAGBQJjHCbRAAoJEEesS+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/ddb439f5c03a82a0273568411b0c222cb7e763574fdaf80adac161197fbfbf1b

Thank you.

Confirmed as received

BTC sent: https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/ddb439f5c03a82a0273568411b0c222cb7e763574fdaf80adac161197fbfbf1b

Please record my return wallet address for future reference: 1MLnUWTYzvL1iqzC52H1ZD9c93s9TnFw82 (please only refund to this address should I win the bet, will not be altered later)

Many thanks

Confirmed

[zazarb]

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 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]

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

Many 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#msg60912731

Escrow 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/crypto

wsBcBAABCgAGBQJjHCbRAAoJEEesS+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/ddb439f5c03a82a0273568411b0c222cb7e763574fdaf80adac161197fbfbf1b

Thank you.

Confirmed as received

BTC sent: https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/ddb439f5c03a82a0273568411b0c222cb7e763574fdaf80adac161197fbfbf1b

Please record my return wallet address for future reference: 1MLnUWTYzvL1iqzC52H1ZD9c93s9TnFw82 (please only refund to this address should I win the bet, will not be altered later)

Many thanks

Confirmed

Hello,
with your link I can't see "governance proposal #5234".
in any case, I'm waiting Fatmanterra comment or confirmation.

[nubcake_MeoW_]

Hello,
with your link I can't see "governance proposal #5234".
in any case, I'm waiting Fatmanterra comment or confirmation.

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

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

[FatManTerra]

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.

[nubcake_MeoW_]

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:

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.

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, 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

[zazarb]

in my opinion, the third clause of the contract has taken place, and even the further events foreseen in the other clauses will not cancel it

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.

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:

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.

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, 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

[FatManTerra]

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.

[nubcake_MeoW_]

in my opinion, the third clause of the contract has taken place, and even the further events foreseen in the other clauses will not cancel it

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.

[FatManTerra]

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=sharing

I 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.

[zazarb]

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=sharing

I 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.

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 the context, spirit & intention behind the bet make this a clear decision. As the bet was placed before the burn tax’s implementation, the terms clearly referred to the tax at a certain stage and did not give carte blanche to an escape hatch as proven by the public messages. The community is still actively signalling for exchanges to implement the tax via on-chain governance, which gives me the impression that the void request is in bad faith. I believe the fair decision here would be to allow the bet to continue until formal resolution is found as per the terms & spirit.

Even though this is not mandated by the terms, which only require a >0.9% burn tax, I will make two concessions out of good faith because I believe they fall in line with the spirit of our agreement. One: despite the void clause only referring to the proposal phase, if Terra Classic governance formally repeals their currently active request to exchanges to implement the off-chain burn tax, I will agree to a void. Two: if a major exchange implements an off-chain burn tax of 0.2% or more per trade, I will resolve the bet as a win for nubcake. I think this concession fairly reflects both the change in circumstances and our original common understanding insofar as our intentions behind this bet.

[nubcake_MeoW_]

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..

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:

6. In the event of a dispute, the escrow provider ... must rely on this agreement as the sole basis for their decision.

[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":

in my opinion, the third clause of the contract has taken place, and even the further events foreseen in the other clauses will not cancel it

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

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 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.

[FatManTerra]

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.)

[nubcake_MeoW_]

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.

[AHOYBRAUSE]

I have now read through all the saga and the proof provided by nubcake and I seriously don't understand why you didn't refund him yet.

The rules are more than clear and the news he provided totally apply. So why do you play around and ignore the man?

Zazarb you have been online but still don't reply to this matter. I guess nub already regrets having had trust in you because this is not how it's supposed to be.

He is not requesting to get all the money paid like he has won, just what they agreed to and the rules they both set up are more than clear. It's a refund and there is no way around it.

Props to nubcake for staying this calm and polite .

EDIT: Don't get me wrong, I understand where FatMan is coming from with his arguments but you clearly added rule 3 and therefor its a void, thats just how it is.

Also this from FatMan "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." is kinda strange. It looks like you want to lure escrow guys in your corner by being generous. Not a good look and I dont see any work the escrow providers did actually do. The facts are presented for days and still no refund or statement, even though online.

[FatManTerra]

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.

[AHOYBRAUSE]

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.

I did not wake up, I am reading in this forum every day, you are the new account here, not me.
Talking about suspicious, what I see is that you offer an incentive to the escrow guys, which is not ok.
Also you are trying to convince zazarb to follow the other guys decision (whatever it will be), this is also a little suspicious I think.

You made and agreed to the terms, also term 3, and what I see is that term 3 is in effect.

This is my personal opinion and as you know I dont post in this forum a lot but after reading all of this here I just had to voice my concerns, since this is an open forum I have the right to do that.


And for everybody to read: "Recently, the Terra Classic ecosystem was quite heated as a significant new update was approved. The LUNC community passed Proposal 5234. According to this, the 1.2% tax burn protocol was changed to 0.2%.

Interestingly, several global crypto exchanges voiced their support for this new move. Consider this, for instance- Binance and Kucoin agreed to implement the new 0.2% tax burn. "

https://coinstats.app/news/TcY82Zjde0_LUNC-community-passes-proposal-5234-heres-why-its-important-for-you

So there is a 0.2% tax burn implemented, and the main exchanges agreed. So how is this not a void when term 3 states:

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.

Please enlighten me.

Edit 2: I just saw in your trust that direwolf was already paid for FatManTerra asked me to arbitrate an off-forum bet. After I completed the work he paid as promised. Is this another bet and/or if it was this bet why was he already paid since you wrote before in this thread ("you can keep the escrow fee and return the bets to us") . So here he might still act as a deciding voice of this bet, how can the other party be sure his opinion is not biased since you 2 have a working (paid) relationship? So this and trying to raise the incentive to 200$ extra, that looks a lot like getting the 2 deciding factors on your side. Sorry but this is just how it looks.

Burn tax is now gonna be 0.2% which is less than 0.9% so the bet is considered void. I don't see how anybody would argue with that.