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..
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:
6. In the event of a dispute, the escrow provider ... must rely on this agreement as the sole basis for their decision.
[Emphasis added]
Prior to FatMan's submission you appeared to "rely on the agreement as the sole basis for your decision" and at that point did not appear to find the situation "confusing or complicated":
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
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
3. 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.
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 your 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 (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.