Topic: 🌟🌟🌟🌟✨ zazarb's Quick-Loans & Escrow 🌟🌟🌟🌟✨ - page 6. (Read 411093 times)

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

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

Thank you and very much appreciated for your kind consideration.

Dabs

Lending service still active

Zazarb: I confirm refund recieved, thank you. I appreciate your application of the original terms and once again sincerely apologise that a dispute and appeal to clause 6 was required. I've appreciated your service and would use it again. IMHO, the true test of character is not when things are 'easy' but when they are 'hard'. I feel you did right here, not only by an honourable transaction, but by avoiding drama. I would gladly recommend you and do business again.

FatMan: put simply, you are pathalogical.

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

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

Thank you.

Zazarb, would you kindly respond?

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

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

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

Hi Zazarb,

I don't object to you taking time to let this matter 'ventilate' before deciding but rather I understand why you may feel that approach is prudent.

I think it would help to limit drama/debate if you could, in the least, clarify by reply:

1. Will you refuse/ignore any submissions external to the original terms, as mandated by the original terms (i.e. will you uphold or disregard clause 6)?

2. Can you provide some guideance or ETA on your decision regarding the refund?



_______Further brief context regarding FatMans post-facto submissions and the 0.2% change

Given the dispute, the following should rightly be irrelevant based on the original terms clauses 3 and 6.
I offer it only because you appear to be somewhat 'drawn in' by FatMan's post-facto submissions.

Please consider:
- The change to 0.2% isn't just that.
- If you read proposal 5234 you'll see it (foolishly in my view) bundled in a 10% payment to nondescript LUNC developers
- This means the bet is no longer just a question of "will CEX burn off-chain?"

The context has dramatically changed and it is now a question of:

"will CEX burn off-chain and will CEX siphon off 10% of the tax revenue payment to a development funding wallet for nondescript parties and purposes."

I think this change dramatically changes the context in a way that dramatically disadvantages me. I spoke publicly against the 10% developer funding being 'bundled in' and voted against the proposal. While I continue to strongly note that all such detail should be rightly irrelevant in deciding the refund (due to clauses 3 and 6) if I'm to respond to FatMan one of the things I will do to demonstrate that I'm being genuine is to show I publicly spoke and voted against the bundling (or rather bungling) '0.2% tax + 10% dev funding' proposal before requesting a refund etc (I've never had to find independent verification of an individual blockchain 'vote' transaction before but I presume it can be done).

Imho, the proposal dramatically reduces the chance that CEX will adopt off-chain burns because it now requires CEX to agree to not just one, but two historic 'firsts', one of which is very obtuse. I believe the 10% dev funding aspect would set a murky precedent that CEX will strongly resist.

On top of all that (imho and as I've hinted previously) FatMan has proved himself to be a thoroughly untrustworthy bet-partner in various distinct and demonstrable ways in recent weeks. He has engaged in several public displays of overt dishonesty and toxic behaviour which I can and will prove if forced. However, again, you'll note I made little or no mention of this before now and I am still trying to avoid getting into that drama by simply noting only that the original terms should apply, as mandated by the original terms themselves.

My strongly preferred position remains simply that: Clauses 3 and 6 are absolutely definitive and the refund should be efficiently processed. Any ancillary statements, submissions, comments or drama are completely irrelevant and should be completely ignored by the escrow providers (including all my posts and all FatMan's posts).

While I'm still ignoring FatMan's google document (and barely skim-reading his forum posts) at the same time, and based on my experiences with him to date, I am 99% confident that FatMan has made no mention whatsoever of the '10% dev funding issues' throughout his lengthy post-facto submissions. That in itself should speak volumes on just how 'fair' or 'honest' he actually is. Put plainly, he's doing everything he can to dishonestly 'win', by contrast I'm only calling for a refund as is clearly provided in the original terms.


_______The bottom line remains:
 
The wording of clauses 3 and 6 is unequivocal.
All other issues, comments, and dramas, are ancillary and should rightly and efficiently be ignored by the escrow providers.

Please confirm your position on the refund as soon as possible, or in the least kindly answer the questions 1 and 2 noted above.

My sincere apologies and thanks again.

Again, the void clause referred to the burn tax in its proposal phase, as that's when the bet was made. Your logic would be correct if the bet had been placed after implementation, but it was placed before. Additionally, I have provided contextual evidence proving that this is the correct interpretation.

DW has helped me moderate a bet before. We have no "relationship," paid or otherwise. He is a neutral, trusted party. My request to increase the escrow fee stands regardless of whether I win or not, so I'm not sure how doing so is in my favour. It's out of courtesy. Also, respectfully, "$200" is not a large sum for any of the parties involved. If there was some sort of incentive or bribe, I assure you that it would be much larger.

I'd like to request that you allow the involved parties to speak without interruptions. The situation is already confusing enough as is and we don't need to add more fuel to the fire. Thank you.

I did not wake up, I am reading in this forum every day, you are the new account here, not me.
Talking about suspicious, what I see is that you offer an incentive to the escrow guys, which is not ok.
Also you are trying to convince zazarb to follow the other guys decision (whatever it will be), this is also a little suspicious I think.

You made and agreed to the terms, also term 3, and what I see is that term 3 is in effect.

This is my personal opinion and as you know I dont post in this forum a lot but after reading all of this here I just had to voice my concerns, since this is an open forum I have the right to do that.


And for everybody to read: "Recently, the Terra Classic ecosystem was quite heated as a significant new update was approved. The LUNC community passed Proposal 5234. According to this, the 1.2% tax burn protocol was changed to 0.2%.

Interestingly, several global crypto exchanges voiced their support for this new move. Consider this, for instance- Binance and Kucoin agreed to implement the new 0.2% tax burn. "

https://coinstats.app/news/TcY82Zjde0_LUNC-community-passes-proposal-5234-heres-why-its-important-for-you

So there is a 0.2% tax burn implemented, and the main exchanges agreed. So how is this not a void when term 3 states:

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.

Please enlighten me.

Edit 2: I just saw in your trust that direwolf was already paid for FatManTerra asked me to arbitrate an off-forum bet. After I completed the work he paid as promised. Is this another bet and/or if it was this bet why was he already paid since you wrote before in this thread ("you can keep the escrow fee and return the bets to us") . So here he might still act as a deciding voice of this bet, how can the other party be sure his opinion is not biased since you 2 have a working (paid) relationship? So this and trying to raise the incentive to 200$ extra, that looks a lot like getting the 2 deciding factors on your side. Sorry but this is just how it looks.

Burn tax is now gonna be 0.2% which is less than 0.9% so the bet is considered void. I don't see how anybody would argue with that.

If you understand where I'm coming from, then surely you can see that the matter isn't nearly as clear as you're making it out to be. I have provided plenty of contextual evidence proving that the void term referred to the burn tax in its proposal phase. Terra governance is still actively signalling for exchanges to implement the 1.2% burn tax (relevant due to the proven common intention behind the term).

I find it a little suspicious that a fresh account with one post awakens out of the blue to mount this odd offensive. Given the likely bad faith nature of this request, I wouldn't be surprised if this was an astroturfing attempt. Regardless, this is a matter between nubcake, myself, and the escrowers.

Implying that escrowers could be "lured" by small bribes is offensive to everyone involved. I believe both escrowers are neutral and objective. Given the scope creep, I find it fair to increase their fee by a little bit. This will, of course, be my request regardless of whether or not they vote in my favour. If I was interested in bribing anyone, which I am not, I would have unilaterally offered money in private, which I have most certainly not done. (Under normal circumstances, I would have messaged nubcake about this privately, but he has blocked me on Discord.)

Agreements in good faith are about the meeting of the minds, and the fact that the bet should continue until formal resolution has more than sufficiently been proven.

I have now read through all the saga and the proof provided by nubcake and I seriously don't understand why you didn't refund him yet.

The rules are more than clear and the news he provided totally apply. So why do you play around and ignore the man?

Zazarb you have been online but still don't reply to this matter. I guess nub already regrets having had trust in you because this is not how it's supposed to be.

He is not requesting to get all the money paid like he has won, just what they agreed to and the rules they both set up are more than clear. It's a refund and there is no way around it.

Props to nubcake for staying this calm and polite .

EDIT: Don't get me wrong, I understand where FatMan is coming from with his arguments but you clearly added rule 3 and therefor its a void, thats just how it is.

Also this from FatMan "If you agree, I would also like to tip both escrow providers an additional 0.01 BTC each from the bet pool as this service has creeped beyond its expected scope." is kinda strange. It looks like you want to lure escrow guys in your corner by being generous. Not a good look and I dont see any work the escrow providers did actually do. The facts are presented for days and still no refund or statement, even though online.

Hi Zazarb,

I'm intentionally not responding to FatMan at this point. Since my first post highlighting the possibilty of this dispute arising, I have limited the size of my posts and tried to keep comments specifically focused on the original agreed terms. I've done this out of respect for the terms themselves but also significantly respecting your time and intended role in any dispute (as defined in clause 6).

Briefly I can only assert that I find FatMan's attitude and posts consistently false, dishonest and toxic. One very brief example: FatMan insisted on the 0.9% threshold, it was entirely his invention and he wrote many of the clauses (and specifically carefully reviewed and agreed all clauses). His repeated suggestions to the contrary are flatly, demonstrably and intentionally dishonest. I take no joy in saying that but rather am doing everything I can to avoid proving this or drawing you further into this and other points.

However, if you rule to accept, or are otherwise visibly influenced by FatMans submissions (as you appear to be above, and as is specifically contrary to clause 6), and on that basis conclude that the refund will not be processed as is undoubtedly required at this point by the original terms (clause 3), I hope you understand that it is fair, and I will want, the opportunity to review and make a detailed response to FatMan various false narratives. As noted, I've still not read nor responded to his "arguments" posted in the above google document.

I hope it is sufficent to simply note again that clause 6 clearly empowers and requires you to refuse (or ignore) any post-facto discussion or submissions, but rather to 'determine the matter on your sole discretion' and 'rely on the original agreement as the sole basis for your decision' in any dispute.

On that basis, I maintain that clause 3 is unequivocal as you yourself appear to recognise above.

Again I am sincerely sorry that this dispute has arisen and requires your attention. I believe the matter can be efficiently and fairly concluded by containing it to the original terms, as is mandated by the original terms. I did make extensive genuine efforts to avoid the current situation and reach agreement and/or reconcile with FatMan before initiating the refund request or dipsute.

I believe my solution is the fairest way. Although I believe I have sufficiently proven that my interpretation of the clause is correct, I am willing to add significant concessions to remain in line with what I believe to be the true spirit of our agreement even though it is at my detriment. This would be my recommendation. If you agree, let us know that this is your final decision and we can consider the matter resolved right away. If you're still unsure, you are welcome to copy DW's decision.

I apologize for the confusing situation.


I'm not submitting new terms, though. I agree that the original terms should be upheld. There is a disagreement regarding the very meaning of one of the terms, so I believe outlining the correct interpretation of said term with context is in order.

Bear in mind that you are the one who recorded the public bet terms and saved them, presumably for a situation like this where clarity over a term is necessary. I may have considered this a genuine miscommunication if you weren't begging arbitrators to not read the comprehensive context behind the formation of our terms (and dismissing my arguments without even reading them). This move, to me, shows bad faith and indicates that you are trying to exploit a potential loophole because you thought you might get away with it. The terms are clear; I have outlined why my interpretation is reasonable and I don't feel the need to add more to the discussion.

I agree that long-winded debate isn't in anyone's interest here. You have submitted your case for why you believe your interpretation is correct, and I have done the same for my side. This is how the arbitration process has always worked. I think we should let the escrowers come to an arbitration decision. I'm not interested in extending this unnecessary situation & clogging up these threads based on an unreasonable refund request.

(If you agree, I would also like to tip both escrow providers an additional 0.01 BTC each from the bet pool as this service has creeped beyond its expected scope.)

Hi Zazarb,

I regetfully and respectfully maintain my call for a refund.
Please provide your formal decision on the dispute in that respect.

I believe you must entirely ignore any post-facto submissions (i.e. FatMan's above "argument") in making your decision because:


I agree with that opinion and imho the situation is very simple:
the tax was reduced to 0.2%, and clause 3 is unequivocal on what should happen


I strongly object to opening this up to post-facto 'arguements' or 'submissions' from the participants because we've clearly been unable to resolve this ourselves and it will obviously lead to long and likely fruitless debates but more importantly this should not be done because it was specifically excluded in the original terms (clause 6).

I've not read FatMan's above "argument" and sincerely hope to avoid having to read it or respond. At this point I'm confident I would find it deeply problematic at best (but more likely flatly dishonest). It would also take a lot of time to put together an appropriate response, and that is both unfair on me and unfair on the escrow providers (for the modest fee you receive). Neither you nor I should be expected to read or write lenghty submissions and again the original agreement sought to avoid exactly this situation if a dispute arose by limiting any dispute to the "sole discretion" of the escrow providers "relying on the original agreement as the sole basis for their decision". I really would prefer to avoid writing, and you to avoid reading, my response to whatever (pleasant sounding but certain nonsense) FatMan has posted above.

Regetfully and respectfully I'm asking for your formal decision and invoking clauses 3 and 6. I maintain my call for a refund, and your formal decision, 'relying on the agreement as the sole basis for your decision,' as mandated in the original terms.

My apologies and thanks again.

The situation is confusing and complicated..
@nubcake_MeoW_  since your original agreement has a some conflict between clause, maybe this proposal of FatManTerrais fair enough for you..

Here is my argument for why the bet should continue until formal resolution is met as per the terms: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FbP3PlREppO8gXzvb_qcKC-N4rHpzXM15XB2oCcFoWA/edit?usp=sharing

I have also included evidence that can be used as context to better interpret the wording of the terms and the intention behind them.

Based on the above, I believe the correct decision here would be to continue the bet either until an off-chain burn tax is implemented, Terra on-chain governance signals to repeal the request to exchanges, or Jan 1. I have nothing further to say and you are welcome to make your decision. I trust that you will make the right choice based on the facts. Alternatively, if you wish to follow DW's decision when he makes it, that works too. Either way is fine by me.

Thanks for your time.

Thanks Zazarb.

Is it right to presume from the above that you will now process the refunds?

I'll reserve (and hope to entirely avoid) any further comment at this point respecting your time.

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.

That being said, if you determine that voiding the bet is appropriate here, I won't argue and agree to comply with your decision.

Thanks for your time.

in my opinion, the third clause of the contract has taken place, and even the further events foreseen in the other clauses will not cancel it