Topic: Bet - Will major CEX do 'off chain' LUNC burns (Read 852 times)

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.

Obviously, I am disappointed by this decision. I don't believe the terms of the bet were correctly upheld given all of the comprehensive background information provided. I'm also very displeased that your original decision was changed based on the opinion of someone who himself claimed to be confused by the situation - and perhaps also by nubcake's private threats of causing "potential drama" if the decision didn't go his way.

This was an important lesson for me in trust and counterparty risk - don't so easily assume that the other party will always act in good faith even though you have no reason to believe otherwise.

That being said, at the outset, I agreed to comply with your decision without complaint.

Thank you for your help with this. (No hard feelings from me - that's just how it goes - I'm sure you did what you believed to be correct.)

Signed and broadcasted: https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/transaction/b172c884fd4f419b47e53229d43692a40322dece3fe94eb6f501aded44ca2fb2

Thanks for the warning and the links.

---

@nubcake_MeoW_ and @FatManTerra

I've built the transaction, and posted a QR code and a PSBT file to our Telegram discussion group.  One of you will need to add your signature and broadcast the transaction, but before you do please confirm the addresses and the amounts are correct.

Thank you both.

Careful there: Bitcointalk accounts have been hacked, and funds have been stolen from escrows this way.

Both users already posted their return address, and those posts haven't been edited: here and here.

---

---

It is indeed sad to see this go down the way it did. It was the second craziest bet I've witnessed.

Hello nubcake_MeoW_ and FatManTerra,

I have made up my mind to invoke clause 3 and call this bet a draw.  Based on Zazarb's decision and LoyceV's appreciated input I think this is the best course of action.  Although I'm not convinced this is necessarily the correct course of action, I think it's best for all involved.

As I've said previously, I am not convinced that we've seen the last adjustment to the burn initiative, and there's still a chance for either party to win the bet.  However, if the situation remains as it is until January 1^st a draw is how I would see it.  Since cause 3 did not indicate any timeline I have a bit of reservation about my decision, but I understand that there's little clarity, and it's does come down to subjectivity.  At the start this looked like a friendly wager and both parties were optimistic.  I will admit that the recent drama and conflict has played a part in my decision.  The last thing I want is to be responsible for more conflict and drama.  I do apologize to you, FatManTerra, I know this is not the decision you hoped for.  I do implore both parties to accept this decision as it is.

nubcake_MeoW_ and FatManTerra, please send me an address here or via PM so I may build the multi-sig transaction.  Thank you both.

Since you want to consult zazarb it should be mentioned to you that he voided the bet already and refunded the money.

I'll ignore the slanderous personal attacks for the sake of time, but it's funny you mention this. Double Eagle made a similar bet with me where I custodied the money upfront. I was to be the sole oracle with no arbitration allowed. When a disagreement over a term arose, I was well within my rights to rule in favour of myself. Instead, I allowed him to pick any arbitrator of his own choosing to rule on the matter and paid a fee out of pocket despite the issue being quite cut and dried in my favour and despite me having zero obligation to use external arbitration. I take gambling integrity very, very seriously. No one deserves to be freerolled. Everyone deserves a fair experience.


Thank you, DW. Take your time. I know that this matter has expanded beyond its original expected scope. I hope you enjoy your vacation.

Hello all,
I just want to apologize for taking so long to respond to this thread, and issue an other in advance.  I was super busy at work last week trying to prepare my team before I started a much needed vacation, and I've traveling over seas the last couple of days.  I'll be away from home visiting family and being a tourist in foreign land for the next couple of weeks, but I do have a secure machine and my wallets with me.  I just want to assure everyone that I am giving this bet serious consideration, and I'm not ignoring the situation not am I intentionally evasive.

I value LoyceV's comments and opinion, but I still want to give this bet it's due consideration before I make a decision.  Please continue to patient with me while think it through and consult with LoyceV and zazarb.

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.

I'm not claiming victory, I'm just saying the bet should continue as specified in the terms. Either you or I could still easily win.

I didn't harass you, lol. I was banned from the TR Discord for saying the burn tax was suicidal and would crash the price (my precise words were "the burn tax will be a sell-the-news event" and I was banned for "FUDding"). LUNC dropped 20-30% after the tax was implemented. To continue discussing the tax, I made an alt account (named... well, my current username spelt backwards, making no attempt to hide). Not trolling, not harassing, just trying to discuss stuff. It was pretty obvious that it was me. (Not sure how any of this is relevant to the matter at hand, but I understand that playing the victim and claiming I "harassed" you might be advantageous to you. I did no such thing.)

I think there's a decent chance that the other account is an astroturf account (if not you, then perhaps a friend). I have no way of knowing for sure, of course - I just pointed out that it's odd how a relatively new account wakes up, starts defending you, and starts accusing two people in good standing of bribery without evidence. If I knew for sure that it was you, I would have said so. Merely entertained the possibility.

Trying to move things back on topic: it looks like our respective cases have been laid out and we can await DW's final decision.

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.

Correct; that was because zazarb said he was confused by the situation. DW has a pretty good handle on it. Someone who doesn't understand the situation may not necessarily make the right ruling and can thus defer to another trusted, neutral party. Like I said, I really didn't care either way; it was just a way to make things smoother.

Well spoken LoyceV, finally somebody that sees the terms for what they are.

I find it a little strange that fatman always wants DW to decide even though DW as well as Zazarb have a voice.
He even asked zazarb to follow DWs lead, which is very strange.

And I quote FT in the other thread addressing zazarb: "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."

Thank you, Loyce, for your opinion. It is much appreciated.

Yes, it is correct that the on-chain tax has been reduced to 0.2% for most transactions, although the higher tax still applies to some swaps if I recall correctly.

The distinction I am trying to draw here is between the burn tax when we made it (the proposal phase, where it was flimsy & prone to reduction) and the burn tax post-implementation. When referring to the burn tax in the original agreement, we were talking about the burn tax being reduced insofar as the 1.2% never gets implemented on chain. As shown by my contextual message, this was my intent behind drafting the term.

I completely see that without further clarity, a carte blanche indefinite void clause can be a valid interpretation. When originally brought up in private discussions, I saw it to be a genuine misunderstanding. This was before the tax reduction. We discussed changing the minimum requirement to 0.2% instead of 0.9%. nubcake remarked that the terms were fair and that not following through would be welching. It was our way of discussing a fair outcome without necessarily having to decide on one interpretation or the other.

However, once the tax was actually reduced, his tune changed. He is now demanding a refund. What really made me end up thinking this was a bad faith request, though, was his adamant refusal to enter into review context that he himself recorded (presumably for an event like this).

Given that as time elapses, the odds of nubcake winning ticks down (as the bet is time sensitive), and given CZ's comments, I believe nubcake is essentially trying to freeroll me instead of following the original spirit of the bet. I believe my proposed concessions (a 0.2% minimum) are fully in line with the original spirit of the bet, but he is not accepting them because his perceived odds have reduced. I do not see this as fair - I firmly believe in fair risk/reward dynamics and don't think freerolling should be encouraged.

I maintain that my interpretation of the term is the correct one, as backed up by the chat evidence. I, too, wish the terms had been more exhaustive, but when facing what I believe to be an exploitation attempt, using nuance and judgement seems appropriate. I also believe the angle DW added made sense; there were some good points there that I didn't think of.

I firmly believe the bet should continue on as agreed until it meets resolution terms. I believe the 'burn tax' phrase should be looked at at the time it was referred to (ie. its proposal phase), not a later point, as the bet was not placed at said later point. That being said, despite my conviction in this, I will comply with DW's final decision without complaint. I trust his judgement and believe he will do the right thing here. (He also has more specific knowledge of the Terra situation.) Nonetheless, your input is valued as always.

Okay, here it goes:

I think the Bet terms, which both parties agreed to, should be binding. That's literally what it says (Clause 6), and that's what is agreed upon.
I understand there was more discussion on channels outside Bitcointalk, but discussion isn't the same as agreeing to Terms.
The sole point of posting Bet terms is to make absolutely clear what to rely on when shit hits the fan.

I'll remind you again that I know nothing about "Terra" or "LUNC", nor did I verify any of the claims made. I read only in this topic that the burn tax is reduced from 1.2% to 0.2%. Again: I did not verify this, and I have no idea if station.terra.money is owned by "Terra Classic governnance" as mentioned in Clause 3. Nobody seems to object against this claim, but I don't see it when I click this link:

My interpretation of Clause 3 is that it's an escape clause. The moment the on-chain burn tax becomes lower than the minimum amount that this bet is all about, there's no way any exchange is going to implement a burn tax above 0.9%.
There's no need for a timeframe, it's a one-time event that makes the bet invalid.

Yeah twist and turn what I said, every reply of yours the same nonsense.
Its a fact you and DW have a working relationship, nubcake and him have 0 relationship. So even if it's the smallest little thing, it's a disadvantage for nub, everybody would see that.
You should put yourself in nubcake's shoes to finally understand this is a problem.

Would you deposit with somebody he recommends and you know he and this person have a working relationship? I seriously doubt that. Escrow ok maybe, but not for a bet deciding voice. Thats why nub said you should maybe use a lawyer as an escrow.

Anyway fact is, you tried to influence/change zazarb's opinion, thats a proven fact. He stated his opinion according to term 6, and you didn't like that . It amazes me you don't see any problem in your actions.

Right - exactly - so external context to determine whether or not a particular term applies is allowed.

I've said this many times, but again, explaining the intention, spirit, and context behind the formation of the terms, using context that nubcake himself saved, is not out of line. And again, I am not advocating for anything but the original terms to be used for determination. Explanation is necessary due to the present ambiguity, as the term can have more than one interpretation.

No one is backing out of escrow. A request like that would obviously be in bad faith, much like this refund request.

I'm not sure all of these personal attacks are of much utility, especially when you've accused me & DW of engaging in bribery merely because he posited a rational opinion based on his own (more informed) understanding of the situation. I'm forced to consider this a bad faith trolling attempt and don't see the point in engaging further. I will await fair bet resolution (either Jan 1 or when an exchange implements the off-chain tax).

"Is linking to the burn tax reduction proposal also violating the rules?" is a stupid question. Of course news , if they are deciding a term of the bet, must be added.

That is not what you do.

Zazarb made a statement based on his SOLE DISCRETION and according to the agreement. You tried to change his mind which is a clear violation . I dont know if it's just ignorance from your side or what.

As far as I saw in the chat video, he saved it also to show that you both made the agreement and decided for a escrow here (which I bet he already hates himself for) . So that nobody can back out especially.

But since you don't see any problem in influencing the deciding people this whole bet is becoming a farce. Everything you do is right according to you, I see that on Twitter as well.

The agreement will always be the sole deciding factor. External data is necessary to parse exactly what the agreement entails. Is linking to the burn tax reduction proposal also violating the rules? It's external info after all. No, it doesn't work that way. External context that's necessary or useful to explain what the terms mean or entail is perfectly fine. As stated, nubcake is the one who recorded and saved this context in the first place. Asking that saved context not to be reviewed is obviously disingenuous, at least to me. Additional rules are not being added. Rule changes are not being requested. The original agreement must be enforced. It's just a matter of what - precisely - the original agreement entails.

Yes, you're right in that zazarb does not have much knowledge of the LUNC situation. DW does. To anyone familiar with the situation, the context of that term is clear. To anyone not familiar, reading the arguments/evidence provided should be sufficient to determine how the term should be followed. You need to draw a distinction between adding context/information for guidance necessary to follow the original agreement and adding new terms. Only the former is happening here, not the latter.

OK, but still you have to understand something.
"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."

If I was the escrow person like zazarb ( he admitted this himself he doesnt really understand the bet ) and have no clue what this bet is about. I see the terms, I see the implementation of the 0.2% tax burn from 10 days ago, and its a void because of rule no 3. Because further explanation from you has to be ignored according to term 6. Now that you stated countless facts to support your claim his opinion is getting shaped/changed and he can't ignore it. 

He wrote himself "in my opinion, the third clause of the contract has taken place" , then you wrote :
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.

The escrow provider will determine the ‘winner’ on their sole discretion but must rely on this agreement as the sole basis for their decision.

You tried to change his mind by ADDING/ADVISING additional information even though sole discretion but and this agreement as the sole basis for their decision.

You understand why I think thats not ok? Nub only provided the news of the 0.2% tax burn and referred to the agreement, you added and added and tried to change a deciding persons mind even though thats 100% against rule 6. Nub acted by and stated the rules, you violate them. Thats my whole problem with this messy situation.