LoyceV, I 100% agree with your post, I really appreciate your input and efforts to help.
AHOYBRAUSE, I've appreciated and agreed with your posts. You repeatedly and independently raised many points I've thought about but not posted about (in a conscious effort to limit the impact on the escrow providers, and limit FM's attempts to confound and embroil this otherwise simple matter).
DireWolfM14, you'll no doubt note LoyceV's post is entirely consistent with, and a confirmation of, both the original terms and my previous posts on the matter.
Also, Zazarb has refunded.
_________Limited response to FatMan
My only further comment is irrelevant to the bet terms, but may give some context to those reading this. Everyone can see above that I've tried to say away from responding to FatMan. In truth, I blocked him on discord some time ago and am barely reading any of his posts, because after my experiences with him, I have zero trust or time left for him. I'm only became aware of the following quote because I read AHOYBRUASE's reply to it:
If you're a nubcake alt ... comes off as bad faith trolling.
Here are Facts:
FatMan was banned from Terra Rebels (for, well, being who he is). He thereafter created at least one (proven by FM himself and other sources) alt-account by the name 'Namtaf Arret' (FatMan Terra backwards). FM near-certainly created at least one more alt-account (exact same MO as the first), and I am confident there are others on the TR discord. FM used these accounts in part to mercilessly troll and harras me (on the TR discord) about the bet and LUNC generally. Its also clear that initially that for some time I was not aware that these accounts were FatMan, or that I was being trolled (despite the toxic nature of the posts) and responded in good faith, as I would to any normal user. I can provide discord links to the exact instances or anyone joining the TR discord and searching my posts from mid-Sep will find proof. In total I believe at least three FatMan-accounts have been banned from TR discord for this or similar behaviour, possibly likely more.
It speaks for itself doesn't it? What kind of child behaves this way? And then later engages in astonishing hypocrisy baselessly accusing me of the exact same behaviour and calling it "bad faith trolling"? And as if that wasn't enough, FatMan does this in a context where he is
entirely aware that the AHOYBRAUSE account could not possibly be me.
Because: FatMan is aware (as per our recorded discord PMs) that I'd never even heard of the BitCoin Talk Forum when we arranged the escrow in September 2022.
So
either 1. I'm a criminal mastermind...
I set up the AHOYBRAUSE account in
Feb 2022, before LUNC even existed, before I'd ever met FatMan, or set up the bet, or had any contention with FatMan, and I prempted all this by lying to FatMan in our prior escrow discussions when I noted I'd never used BitCoin Talk, and I did all this why?... dishonest mastermind that I am... well...
to claim a refund!
... it is either that, or ...
2. FatMan is flatly lying to you all,
yet again.
I would be very appreciative of your input.
Okay, here it goes:
I think the
Bet terms, which
both parties agreed to, should be binding. That's literally what it says (Clause 6), and that's what is agreed upon.
I understand there was more discussion on channels outside Bitcointalk, but discussion isn't the same as agreeing to Terms.
The sole point of posting Bet terms is to make absolutely clear what to rely on when shit hits the fan.
I'll remind you again that I know nothing about "Terra" or "LUNC", nor did I verify any of the claims made. I read
only in this topic that the burn tax is reduced from 1.2% to 0.2%. Again: I did not verify this, and I have no idea if station.terra.money is owned by "Terra Classic governnance" as mentioned in Clause 3. Nobody seems to object against this claim, but I don't see when I click this link:
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.
My interpretation of Clause 3 is that it's an escape clause. The moment the on-chain burn tax becomes lower than the minimum amount that this bet is all about, there's no way any exchange is going to implement a burn tax above 0.9%.
There's no need for a timeframe, it's a one-time event that makes the bet invalid.