Hi Zarzarb,
For the record, 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 refuse/ignore any submissions external to the clauses themselves (i.e. if you will uphold or disregard clause 6)
2. can you provide some guideance or ETA on your decision regarding the refund
_______Further brief context regarding FatMan and the 0.2% change
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 comments.
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 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 provide a transaction history showing I publicly spoke against 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 (including all my own posts).
Please confirm your position on the refund as soon as possible, or in the least kindly answer the two questions 1 and 2 noted above as soon as possible.
My sincere apologies and thanks again.