Bet - Will major CEX do 'off chain' LUNC burns

[nubcake_MeoW_]

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

[1714891044]

1714891044

[1714891044]

1714891044

[1714891044]

1714891044

[DireWolfM14]

Confirmed, I am holding one of three signing keys from a 2/3 multi-sig wallet.

Code:

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

September 13, 2022

This is DireWolfM14@Bitcontalk.org confirming I hold one of three signing keys for the address below:

bc1qnmt5q56rlftz9zuyh4kf8xx3yuvvux36q3n0vmw62v38mlv4v6aqv2pk0c
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=r8Ap
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[LoyceV]

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

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!

[FatManTerra]

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.

[nubcake_MeoW_]

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]

I figure I should quote this post for redundancy as well.

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

[FatManTerra]

Money deposited: https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/25dc06e2a9f978a3382214e7d1d37eb29727f36c38dbbbeaf5aee14c2d12e1ca

Many 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

[nubcake_MeoW_]

Money deposited: https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/25dc06e2a9f978a3382214e7d1d37eb29727f36c38dbbbeaf5aee14c2d12e1ca

Many 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

[LoyceV]

Money deposited: https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/25dc06e2a9f978a3382214e7d1d37eb29727f36c38dbbbeaf5aee14c2d12e1ca

Many 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.

Also quoting, just in case

[nubcake_MeoW_]

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

[DireWolfM14]

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

Quoting for reference.

[FatManTerra]

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.

[nubcake_MeoW_]

Confirmation of final payment of the bet:

https://blockchain.coinmarketcap.com/address/bitcoin/bc1qnmt5q56rlftz9zuyh4kf8xx3yuvvux36q3n0vmw62v38mlv4v6aqv2pk0c

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.

[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.

[FatManTerra]

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!

[nubcake_MeoW_]

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.

Hope posting here is ok. (if not I will delete and apologize)

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).

[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 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.

[FatManTerra]

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.

[nubcake_MeoW_]

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.

[FatManTerra]

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#msg60963629

It 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.

[nubcake_MeoW_]

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.

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.