Hi DireWolfM14,
I'll make a brief formal response in advance of a longer and more specific reply.
Your below response is very problematic because you've disregarding or recast the original terms.
One example among several I could note:
Youve ignored clause 6 by accepting and clearly being influenced by FatMan's post-facto submissions, and even matters completely external (i.e. CZs posts).
Youve not only breached clause 6, but in expanding your focus beyond the original terms you are further being unfair by not considering my position (Ive not given my response to FMs submissions, rather Ive only noted that all such post-facto material must be ignored as mandated by the original terms).
Before I make any further submissions, I maintain my request for an immeidate refund.
If you maintain a refusal, I formally request that you specifically explain:
How does your below stated position respect clause 6 (which you agreed to adhere to from the outset):
6. In the event of a dispute, the escrow provider ... must rely on this agreement as the sole basis for their decision.
DireWolfM14, would you kindly respond.
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?
Hello nubcake_MeoW,
I'm reluctant to agree with you that the bet qualifies as a draw, at least not yet. My reluctance is partly due to the fact clause #3 doesn't include a timeframe, and since the bet does not reach maturity until January 1
st, 2023.
Bet terms:
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.
It's also fair to point out that FatMan does not wish to enter the dispute phase based on this specific disagreement, and would prefer to let the bet continue. I think it would be unfair to make a decision at this time with that being the case.
Bet terms:
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.
Yet another reason I'm of the opinion that it's best to let the bet run it's course is that the LUNC burn initiative seems to be in flux. Initially it was set to 1.2%, before it was recently reduced. I'm not convinced that we've seen the last adjustment, nor am I convinced that CEXs won't impose other methods to burn LUNC. FatMan posted a message from CZ indicating that Binance might impose a voluntary option to allow LUNC users to burn at their discretion, and using those opt-in values to determine how to proceed. I understand that since CZ's message was published Binance has chosen to burn their spot trading fee, and not impose any further tax on their clients who trade LUNC, but again I'm not convinced this won't change before the deadline. I'm of the opinion that you still have a chance to win this bet, and calling it a draw might be as much a disservice to you as it would be to FatMan.