Topic: Bet - Will major CEX do 'off chain' LUNC burns (Read 841 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.

The bet was posted here for record-keeping purposes and so that the escrow system could work properly. It's certainly not a free-for-all match. I, too, could rally plenty of people on my side, some with long histories of trust on this platform, but that would obviously be inappropriate. The two of us signed up for a decision from DW and that is what we expect. Nothing more, nothing less.

I agree that rules should be strict and coherent. I tried to add some more details and clarity to the terms myself. But I did not imagine refund requests would be made in bad faith, so the bet wording was fairly casual, in parts ambiguous, and non-exhaustive. If I had a do-over I would probably have made the terms one or two pages to protect against exploitation (or miscommunication). That being said, the contextual evidence from our discussion IMO sufficiently proves the real intent here, coupled with the timing as mentioned. I also agree with the spirit-related arguments DW made later that I hadn't considered.

The internal (real) odds of the off-chain burn tax being implemented have, in fact, increased, not decreased (exchanges are far more likely to implement a 0.2% tax compared to a 1.2% tax). The only reason nubcake is seeking a refund early is because the external (perceived) odds (in his estimation) have changed given CZ's statement (and time elapsed). This entire situation is an attempt to back out of a fair wager because he realizes his odds aren't as good as he initially thought, which is not at all a fair way to place the bet.

He himself knows this, as he referred to voiding the bet as "welching" four times. Money > morals, I suppose. I am not enjoying this but at least we're in good hands.

"Noobcake alt" . You say it yourself that I dont know enough about lunc and so on so it should be obvious I am not him. I am just an interested reader that doesn't like what he is seeing here going down, that's all.

And like I said before in my opinion more people should see this bet and give their opinion because stating the rules publically for everyone to see only matter if actually everybody can see them. The rules have no room for interpretation.

Starting with listening what LoyceV thinks is a great idea!

I would be very appreciative of your input.  You're one of the most rational and unbiased individuals on this forum.  I was hoping I wouldn't have to ask (I didn't want to impose on your time,) but since things have gotten so messy I was actually planning to reach out.  Thank you for offering.

I like strict rules, because it avoids discussion later on. But I also know it's difficult to include all possible scenarios up-front.

---

---

I know basically nothing about "Terra", and everything I know about the burn tax is from this bet. I have a tentative opinion based on what I read in this topic, but I don't want to influence DireWolfM14 unless he asks for it.

Not creating a more exhaustive set of terms to remove ambiguity was definitely an oversight. I assumed that I was entering a friendly gentleman's agreement in good faith. In hindsight, this was a mistake on my part.

nubcake and I both agreed on the escrow providers involved. I was ready to use zazarb for both of the coins, but nubcake himself suggested choosing someone else to spread out risk. Out of several potential options we went with DW. The whole time, I was completely apathetic about who to use as long as they were fairly trusted on the forum. I believe that any neutral & reasonable person would find the same outcomes when presented with this set of decisions.

Suggesting that I bribed this neutral party that we both agreed on who is, again, highly trusted on Bitcoin Talk, is inappropriate & conspiracy talk. No one was bribed. There have been no secret payments or promises to anyone. Alleging that both DW and I are untrustworthy and that we secretly conspired, just to further your view/agenda, is a step too far.

If you're a nubcake alt, then, like I explained on Telegram, even unreasonable people can be adamant and may truly believe in their position, which is why a neutral party is necessary for determination of the truth. In any case, this crazy talk about people being "in my pocket" does a disservice to everyone involved and comes off as bad faith trolling.

FT you really love to listen to yourself talking. So many big words, so small value. Must be hard to talk your way around the main facts just to prove your point.
If all those big facts you are presenting are so important, why arent they added in the rules ? How would DW or Zazarb know what you were talking about unless you now influenced them with your view of how it should be interpreted (which according to rule 6 should be ignored)? But of course now its too late to ignore that right? Smart move by yourself.

From the chat nub recorded he trusted you with finding escrow and now he has to pay for it. One guy in your pocket and the other MIA.

By the way, DW's reply sounds totally orchestrated by you. I have never seen him in any LUNC discussion in this board and suddenly he comes with all those technicalities, of course in your favour yet again.


Just keep bending the rules that are clear for everyone to see , this won't end well here. For someone that is constantly whining about crypto scammers on Twitter you are not much better I can see now.

Interpreting a rule certainly matters. This is why there are constant debates over the letter of the law in court. The terms, as written, can be seen in more than one way, and require a neutral judge to adjudicate. I agree that the rules should be followed as is, but what "followed" precisely entails is in contention here.



As described in my arguments, this was clear from the time the bet was placed. The bet was placed while the burn tax was a governance proposal, and that's what it referred to. If the bet was placed after the burn tax had already been implemented, then your view would make sense, but it wasn't. I've also included evidence from our original discussion to back this up. It's a matter of interpretation but this point is pretty clear IMO.


Once again, I agree that only the agreement is important. Now, there was a clear, purpose-built conversation around the nature & spirit of the bet leading to the agreement being created. nubcake himself recorded this conversation, created a video file, and sent it to me for the avoidance of doubt. Why would such a file ever be necessary? Presumably, in the event of a dispute. Begging not to have this very context shared indicates to me that his refund request is in bad faith.

In courts, when there's a dispute over a civil contract, even though the agreement is confined to the realms of the contract alone, do we submit the agreement document to the judge and have them make a blind decision? No. Both parties argue their case, even though the contract exists, usually because there is ambiguity or contention that requires further explanation. A holistic decision is made - if the contract is valid, still on the basis of the contract - taking into account the terms, their implications, the genuine intent behind them, and a meeting of the minds. This is key for any genuine, good faith agreement.

DW is familiar with the burn tax subject matter from related prior arbitration and is a trusted, intelligent, valued member of the community. He understands full well what is going on here. Despite attempts from near-brand new astroturf accounts (or perhaps genuine people less educated on the subject, who knows) to sway the discussion, I am confident that a fair outcome will be reached.

I really feel sorry for nubcake here.
Read all the posts, even read the published video of the discord chat.

1 escrow replies after 10 days and the other is offline for soon to be 1 week, not the best way to handle a situation.

Also, nub's arguments basically get ignored even though everything he says has a foundation. Rule 3 is in effect, rules 6 also gets violated here. Bad example how to not have a bet/escrow in this forum, especially for high amounts like this one.

"My reluctance is partly due to the fact clause #3 doesn't include a timeframe, and since the bet does not reach maturity until January 1st, 2023." is no argument in my eyes. When there is no timeframe then this mean obviously anytime.

When I make a bet, A vs B , and I lose I cant say, oh I meant the next game after that, we didn't say the time.

You 2 made the rules, maybe not specific enough, but you both agreed to them. And according to the rules as they stand and are written, nubcake is right. Interpretations of the rules don't matter, just whats in written down.

Fatman you also wrote that " the void clause referred to the burn tax in its proposal phase" , there is nothing about that in the rules you submitted, if you want to have this argument to be right you should have added that when you made these rules .
By the way, all these arguments by fatman why rule 3 should not count must be ignored since "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.". So no need to explain your opinion how the rules should be interpreted. It is only an attempt to influence or dictate the escrows decision making. The ONLY thing important is the agreement, not more and not less.

I think the community here should read about this as this is definitely going in the wrong direction.

Thanks for your input, DW. Some good points made that I didn't think of, such as the tax being in flux and the exchange burn very much still in play. I agree that resolution should only occur as stated (Jan 1 or off-chain tax implementation). Appreciate your time and sorry for the confusion.

Hi DireWolfM14,

I'll make a brief formal response in advance of a longer and more specific reply if this is not sufficient to resolve the issue.

Your below response is very problematic because you're demonstrably disregarding and recasting the original terms.

One example among several I could note:
You’ve ignored clause 6 by accepting influence from FatMan's post-facto submissions, and even matters completely external (i.e. CZs posts).

You’ve not only breached clause 6, but in expanding your focus beyond the original terms you are further being unfair by not considering my position (I’ve not given a full response to FMs submissions, rather I’ve limited replies and generally only noted that all such post-facto material must be ignored as mandated by the original terms).

Before I make any further submissions, I maintain my request for an immeidate refund.

If you maintain a refusal, in the first instance I formally request that you specifically explain:
How does your below quoted position/post respect clause 6 (which you agreed to adhere to from the outset):

Hello nubcake_MeoW,

I'm reluctant to agree with you that the bet qualifies as a draw, at least not yet.  My reluctance is partly due to the fact clause #3 doesn't include a timeframe, and since the bet does not reach maturity until January 1^st, 2023.


It's also fair to point out that FatMan does not wish to enter the dispute phase based on this specific disagreement, and would prefer to let the bet continue.  I think it would be unfair to make a decision at this time with that being the case.


Yet another reason I'm of the opinion that it's best to let the bet run it's course is that the LUNC burn initiative seems to be in flux.  Initially it was set to 1.2%, before it was recently reduced.  I'm not convinced that we've seen the last adjustment, nor am I convinced that CEXs won't impose other methods to burn LUNC.  FatMan posted a message from CZ indicating that Binance might impose a voluntary option to allow LUNC users to burn at their discretion, and using those opt-in values to determine how to proceed.  I understand that since CZ's message was published Binance has chosen to burn their spot trading fee, and not impose any further tax on their clients who trade LUNC, but again I'm not convinced this won't change before the deadline.  I'm of the opinion that you still have a chance to win this bet, and calling it a draw might be as much a disservice to you as it would be to FatMan.

DireWolfM14, would you kindly respond.

DireWolfM14:

Please consider the following.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.61166801

Most notably quoted from the above:

DireWolfM14, noted with thanks.

In respect of any other aspect I am only repeating the same:
FatMan's repeated (and in my considered view intentionally dishonest) attempts to secure post-facto debate or submissions must rightly be ignored and/or not allowed. The original terms (see clauses 3 and 6) were agreed after a long process and are unequivocal on both the trigger for a 'refund' and the fact that the original terms are the 'sole basis' for any dispute determination.

It is further plainly unfair that, as part of the modest transaction fee, you should be imposed upon with any further debate or submissions (beyond what is strictly necessary in the application of the original agreed terms) particularly when the original terms specifically and undeniably addressed and sought to avoid that possibility.

My apologies and thanks again.

I'm in no rush. Take your time.

Feel free to ask whoever you like. Tomorrow I'll post some additional context regarding the spirit of our bet in the three-way chat along with my arguments to help inform your decision. Bit of a busy day today.

Hello Gentlemen,
I will be taking a close look at this throughout the day, but please do not expect an opinion today.  If I have any questions I'll reach out to both of you here or on the Telegram chat.  I'm all about transparency, so I would appreciate any communication to be done here in public, in a PM discussion between the three of us, or on the Telegram group chat.

I would also like your permission to ask questions of other members here on the forum whom I trust to remain neutral have demonstrated rational judgement.  If I do reach out to others, I'll disclose their usernames as having contributed to my opinion.

Dispute resolution involves formal submission of arguments from both sides... That has not happened yet. Moreover, you can't use the term in dispute to give yourself money before the bet has resolved, because it's literally the term being disputed.

DW: I trust your judgement and will honour your final decision. Whether you think formal arbitration is appropriate here or not, I will comply with your verdict without question or complaint.

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.


Please confirm your decision and intended action in due course by reply.

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.

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.

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