Hey zazarb. nubcake is attempting to get his money back before the bet has officially resolved (no exchange has implemented the off-chain burn tax yet). The void clause referred to the tax in its proposal phase. If the burn tax was removed or reduced at this stage, the bet would be voided. After our initial agreement, the 1.2% burn tax was activated on-chain, thus activating our bet. Although the written term leaves some ambiguity, the spirit and intention behind the terms is evident. The timing of the agreement (pre-activation) makes the intention clear as well.

As we have a disagreement concerning the interpretation of this term, I have requested an arbitration decision from DW, the second escrow provider. I asked nubcake whether he would like to open a separate arbitration process with you or roll with DW's decision for both sets of coins. He refused to answer and blocked me on Discord.

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.

Apologies for the inconvenience.