Re: [PAID TESTERS NEEDED] Zenland Escrow Contract | Custom Agents | Up to $20 (open)
⭐ Merited by Diornov (5)
The case so far:
The escrow was for the exchange of 1 USDC for 10.000.000 SHIB.
I check the chat logs, the Contractee has sent 1 USDC on the Polygon network to the escrow contract, which I confirmed onchain.
The Contractor then sent the Contractee 10.000.000 units of a token on the Polygon network of contract 0x61b66853bdefe04dc058774b808163d65a9c947d, which is an ERC20 with the symbol “SHIBA”.
The Contractee contested the idea by claiming that those are not the real SHIB tokens, but a random/fake token with the same name on the contract.
The Contractor isn't collaborative, the contract is disputed.
My decision:
I sent the following message on the chat so both parties understood my way of thinking:
Then I split the money, which finished the case: 99% to the Contractee (buyer), 0% to the Contractor (seller), 1% to the Agent.
Thoughts:
The escrow was for the exchange of 1 USDC for 10.000.000 SHIB.
I check the chat logs, the Contractee has sent 1 USDC on the Polygon network to the escrow contract, which I confirmed onchain.
The Contractor then sent the Contractee 10.000.000 units of a token on the Polygon network of contract 0x61b66853bdefe04dc058774b808163d65a9c947d, which is an ERC20 with the symbol “SHIBA”.
The Contractee contested the idea by claiming that those are not the real SHIB tokens, but a random/fake token with the same name on the contract.
The Contractor isn't collaborative, the contract is disputed.
My decision:
I sent the following message on the chat so both parties understood my way of thinking:
Quote
As the dispute agent, it is my understanding that the “real” SHIB coin in question refers to Shiba Inu, a famous token on the Ethereum network of contract 0x95ad61b0a150d79219dcf64e1e6cc01f0b64c4ce (Coingecko page: https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/shiba-inu).
The token also has an official bridged version on the Polygon network of contract 0x6f8a06447Ff6FcF75d803135a7de15CE88C1d4ec
What the Contractor sent was a token deployed just 1 hour before the escrow transaction, with no transaction history or apparent real value.
For that I’m siding with the Contractee for 100% minus the agent’s fee of 1%.
Suggestion:
Write the contract address and network of the token in question on the “Contract details” field so there is no confusion on what both parties are agreeing to.
The token also has an official bridged version on the Polygon network of contract 0x6f8a06447Ff6FcF75d803135a7de15CE88C1d4ec
What the Contractor sent was a token deployed just 1 hour before the escrow transaction, with no transaction history or apparent real value.
For that I’m siding with the Contractee for 100% minus the agent’s fee of 1%.
Suggestion:
Write the contract address and network of the token in question on the “Contract details” field so there is no confusion on what both parties are agreeing to.
Then I split the money, which finished the case: 99% to the Contractee (buyer), 0% to the Contractor (seller), 1% to the Agent.
Thoughts:
- The link (coingecko page) on my message sent on the chat was broken. Screenshot:
- On the contract main details card, the Contractee (buyer) comes first and the Contractor (seller) comes second. When splitting the money, it's the opposite: the Contractor (Seller’s Percentage) comes first and the Contractee (Buyer’s Percentage) comes second. This change of orders and wording can be confusing, which is bad specially when you’re splitting the money, a sensitive action that can cause money losses.
For a moment, I almost did the opposite of what I wanted and sent 99% to the Contractee (buyer) which was trying to scam the Contractor (seller). This would be a disastrous outcome.
Suggestion: Be more consistent with the wording for both parties. I personally still don't like the words Contractee and Contractor as a non-native english speaker. Multiple times I caught myself having to think more than I should to avoid mistaking who's who. "Contractee = buyer = sent the USDC" and "Contractor = seller = sent the fake SHIBA".
I would prefer if the contractee/contractor names would be ditched and the contract creator could choose if he's the buyer or seller.
- Hovering the “Seller’s percentage”, “Buyer’s Percentage” or "Agent’s Percentage” information icon on the Splitting Money card shows up a tooltip that blocks the input until the mouse leaves the area. It took me a couple seconds to understand why I couldn’t write on the input.
- The reputation page was down at the time of my review. Error “Cannot read properties of null (reading 'toLowerCase')” on line 74 of Profile.tsx: params.id.toLowerCase() !== auth.whoAmI.nickname.toLowerCase())
- After the dispute was concluded, I was sent directly to the Contracts page and an error message popped up with the text “Not found”. It would be better to show the final outcome and the previously disputed contracts on my list.