Topic: Bet - Will major CEX do 'off chain' LUNC burns - page 3. (Read 826 times)

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.

LUNC (Terra Classic) governance proposal #5234 has passed reducing the tax from 1.2% to 0.2%
(see https://station.terra.money/proposal/5234)

Clause 3 states:

I also note again clause 6:
[Emphasis added]

For further detail please see my earlier posts above.

DireWolfM14 kindly confirm by reply that the refunds will be processed according to the agreed terms.

Massdamer, I also appreciate your interest and well wishes.

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

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

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!

Confirmation of final payment of the bet:

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

[Emphasis added]

Again the agreement is clear:

[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.

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.

Quoting for reference.

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:

[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

Also quoting, just in case

Quoting for deposit address verification

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

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

Thanks for you help LoyceV, much appreciated. Thanks for confirming FM and DW.  

Looks good to me! I agree.

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!

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

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:



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