Thank you, Loyce, for your opinion. It is much appreciated.

Yes, it is correct that the on-chain tax has been reduced to 0.2% for most transactions, although the higher tax still applies to some swaps if I recall correctly.

The distinction I am trying to draw here is between the burn tax when we made it (the proposal phase, where it was flimsy & prone to reduction) and the burn tax post-implementation. When referring to the burn tax in the original agreement, we were talking about the burn tax being reduced insofar as the 1.2% never gets implemented on chain. As shown by my contextual message, this was my intent behind drafting the term.

I completely see that without further clarity, a carte blanche indefinite void clause can be a valid interpretation. When originally brought up in private discussions, I saw it to be a genuine misunderstanding. This was before the tax reduction. We discussed changing the minimum requirement to 0.2% instead of 0.9%. nubcake remarked that the terms were fair and that not following through would be welching. It was our way of discussing a fair outcome without necessarily having to decide on one interpretation or the other.

However, once the tax was actually reduced, his tune changed. He is now demanding a refund. What really made me end up thinking this was a bad faith request, though, was his adamant refusal to enter into review context that he himself recorded (presumably for an event like this).

Given that as time elapses, the odds of me winning ticks up (as the bet is time sensitive), and given CZ's comments, I believe nubcake is essentially trying to freeroll me instead of following the original spirit of the bet. I believe my proposed concessions (a 0.2% minimum) are fully in line with the original spirit of the bet, but he is not accepting them because his perceived odds have reduced. I do not see this as fair - I firmly believe in fair risk/reward dynamics and don't think freerolling should be encouraged.

I maintain that my interpretation of the term is the correct one, as backed up by the chat evidence. I, too, wish the terms had been more exhaustive, but when facing what I believe to be an exploitation attempt, using nuance and judgement seems appropriate. I also believe the angle DW added made sense; there were some good points there that I didn't think of.

I firmly believe the bet should continue on as agreed until it meets resolution terms. I believe the 'burn tax' phrase should be looked at at the time it was referred to (ie. its proposal phase), not a later point, as the bet was not placed at said later point. That being said, despite my conviction in this, I will comply with DW's final decision without complaint. I trust his judgement and believe he will do the right thing here. (He also has more specific knowledge of the Terra situation.) Nonetheless, your input is valued as always.