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

[FatManTerra]

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.

[1714812194]

1714812194

[1714812194]

1714812194

[nubcake_MeoW_]

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.

[FatManTerra]

I'm not sure how the dev contribution is relevant. The two were voted in through the same proposal but the code is separate. There is still a 0.2% burn and a disparate 0.02% community pool mint. It seems like you're adding on yet another unrelated excuse in an attempt to make your unreasonable refund request look more legitimate.

The issue boils down to whether or not the void clause refers to the pre-implementation proposal phase burn tax or the post-implementation burn tax carte blanche. I believe the timing and context makes it clear what the intention here was. I would assume this to be a genuine miscommunication between us, but your refusal to include the very context you recorded and saved makes me believe this is a disingenuous, bad faith request. Attempts to divert the discussion aren't appreciated either.

I will let the escrowers decide which interpretation is right and we can take it from there. They are neutral & reasonable, thus I'm sure they'll make the correct choice.

[nubcake_MeoW_]

Zazarb, would you kindly respond?

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?

[zazarb]

Because you both guys didn't find a solution that was satisfactory to both sides, I by sole discretion but  relying on your agreement as the sole basis for my decision , apply clause 3. The funds are returned to the addresses specified by you.
Txid a7df7c18c96af37971fb2389551d673ccae8869ce6b6e0362836c1c8acf7c341

Thank you.

[FatManTerra]

Coin received. While I'm greatly disappointed by this outcome, I will abide by my promise to not argue with your decision. Thank you for your help.

[nubcake_MeoW_]

Because you both guys didn't find a solution that was satisfactory to both sides, I by sole discretion but  relying on your agreement as the sole basis for my decision , apply clause 3. The funds are returned to the addresses specified by you.
Txid a7df7c18c96af37971fb2389551d673ccae8869ce6b6e0362836c1c8acf7c341

Thank you.

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.

[zazarb]

Lending service still active

[Dabs]

Hi zazarb, per our discussion over private message, I am posting here in your thread.

I would like to kindly request for an extension as there was a family emergency that came up and I had to take care of it and I can not pay you by December 31. Please allow me another month to pay you by January 31, 2023 and if we can maintain the payment at 0.605 BTC.

Thank you and very much appreciated for your kind consideration.

Dabs

[zazarb]

Hi zazarb, per our discussion over private message, I am posting here in your thread.

I would like to kindly request for an extension as there was a family emergency that came up and I had to take care of it and I can not pay you by December 31. Please allow me another month to pay you by January 31, 2023 and if we can maintain the payment at 0.605 BTC.

Thank you and very much appreciated for your kind consideration.

Dabs

The loan  extension approved.

[paid2]

Loan Amount: 0.2 BTC
Reason for Taking out a Loan: personnal needs
Amount to be repaid: 0.21 BTC
Repayment Date: Third of February 2023
Type of Collateral: none
Bitcoin Address:

[zazarb]

Loan Amount: 0.2 BTC
Reason for Taking out a Loan: personnal needs
Amount to be repaid: 0.21 BTC
Repayment Date: Third of February 2023
Type of Collateral: none
Bitcoin Address: 1Burek87Lx48SR97fN8HJvGwTEBQMxjWpH

Denied

[bets21]

Hi pls check dm i need escrow service for a trade with other member here

[zazarb]

Hi pls check dm i need escrow service for a trade with other member here

Sorry, I don’t escrow any accounts deals

[Dabs]

Hi zazarb,

I would like to kindly request for further extension, I am still unable to pay for now. I will have some funds incoming by March 2023. Please allow until then March 31, 2023 and if we can maintain the payment at 0.605 BTC.

Thank you and very much appreciated for your kind consideration.

Dabs

[zazarb]

Hi zazarb,

I would like to kindly request for further extension, I am still unable to pay for now. I will have some funds incoming by March 2023. Please allow until then March 31, 2023 and if we can maintain the payment at 0.605 BTC.

Thank you and very much appreciated for your kind consideration.

Dabs

Extension has been approved

[xbb89199]

Hello,

I need your help with an escrow service. I am trying to purchase a Chrome Extension for 12K$. And we need a trustworthy middle man.
Can you help us out?

Thanks and best regards,
Ivana

[papundekli22]

Loan Amount:0.002 BTC
Reason for Taking out a Loan:Personal
Amount to be repaid: 0.0025
Repayment Date:3.3.2023
Type of Collateral:NFT collection
Bitcoin Address:3AaCZHvhu4FZAkVh3t9wPnpqJuktx345yq

I waiting for your reply

Thanks have a nice day

Best Regards Papunekli22

[zazarb]

Loan Amount:0.002 BTC
Reason for Taking out a Loan:Personal
Amount to be repaid: 0.0025
Repayment Date:3.3.2023
Type of Collateral:NFT collection
Bitcoin Address:3AaCZHvhu4FZAkVh3t9wPnpqJuktx345yq

I waiting for your reply

Thanks have a nice day

Best Regards Papunekli22

Denied, I don"t take nft as collateral, sorry.

[viduk222]

Loan Amount: ? USDT
Loan Purpose: Personal
Loan Repay Amount: +30% USDT
Loan Repay Date: 14.03.24
Type of Collateral: None
 Aдpec USDT (TRC20): TVwURsfbt3atx1iTfwmUggMhG4KENH8ifS (min $3)
Aдpec ltc:   ltc1qnnmkxnnvrfkenk0hqujdlnvx6ws65ww84930ef  (min 0.004 ltc)
hello i am a newbie with no reputation. if it's not difficult, give out a small loan for 1-2 days. to gain reputation.