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.
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:
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.
[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
Again the agreement is clear:
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.
[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.