CΞAZOR.eth mak'n 🥪s 🦇🔊

The final verdict from @Trueo_app’s most contentious market has been delivered. The Jury voted for an outcome Reset. In other words, they ruled that it was too early to resolve the market. But there were some very interesting things about this dispute… For starters, both TRUE holders and Attesters voted against the Oracle Council’s initial decision. The Oracle Council voted 3-2 in favor of a YES outcome (I was among the YES voters). But TRUE holders and Attesters voted in supermajority support of the dispute. They deemed that the proposal came too early, and that Polymarket had not really released a “token” yet. Or did they? I personally voted YES as an oracle council member because I felt like the rules, though ambiguous, were satisfied as written when Polymarket released pUSD. I wasn’t happy about it, obviously it didn’t capture the essence of the market which was clearly meant to be about a potential network or governance token, but I voted YES nonetheless because I felt like the criteria in a literal sense was met when pUSD dropped. But TRUE holders and Attesters felt otherwise. They must have felt like the purpose of the market wasn’t satisfied even if the rules in a very rigid and literal sense were. I know the outcome might not be to everyone’s liking, and I know that some users would have preferred a YES outcome, but I do hope that they at least found some consolation in the process it self. Namely that the various arguments were aired, and that multiple desperate judgements came to pass on the dispute. In the future these contentious markets can be avoided with more precise resolution rules, but there is always some room for interpretation or some hidden ambiguity in the spectrum of possibilities. Getting these things right is very difficult, and ultimately, what I believe is more important than the outcome itself, is the process through which an outcome is derived. All this being said, there’s nothing stopping someone from proposing the same outcome again in hopes that TRUE holders have changed their minds, or that a different batch of Attesters gets selected who are more sympathetic to the resolution. Prediction markets are vey tricky specifically because of their subjective nature. But that’s also what makes them interesting! We still have much to improve on, and we learned a lot from this dispute, but hopefully we were able to prove that we take the concept of due process very seriously. Because at the end of the day, a prediction market is only as good as its oracle!

No MEGA has been provided as airdrop or marketing fees to CEXs for listing purposes. I had Bread delete his tweet because, as an ecosystem lead, he did not understand how asset listing works and misspoke. @_jhunsaker did the CEXs that listed MON go onto Monad to buy the asset? I thought not LOL. I recommend focusing on yourself king and not baiting bread unless you want a naked dude to get all on you 🙂 Also, as much as people want to villainize Binance, our experience with them was professional/non-predatory.

THis is what i see in my head 1. Lawyer client's ferrai got stolen in @arbitrum city 2. Then our BMW got stoken in Arb citY 3. Arb recovered the BMW, but.. 4. ferrai lawers say their car got stolen 1st and Arb city didnt recover, so they shold get BMW this is the picture in my mind, but i need to read gabys share... its so much law blah blah though. and filtered down to "general audience"

if you want some more info on the Arbitrum legal action, here's the actual court order (yes, there is a real court order, not just 'a letter from a lawyer') and a Claude summary TLDR, the plaintiffs' lawyers did indeed effectuate a facially *legally binding* freeze on the confiscated KelpDAO assets, with the court's approval--yes, they have the right to do that pursuant to specific laws, it's not a 'theory' or 'just some evil lawyers making something up' so, if I understand correctly, unless some jurisdictional argument wins (hard to imagine as there are doubtless many U.S. DAO participants), Arbitrum DAO is not allowed to do anything with the KelpDAO funds for now, until a divestiture hearing--even if they ultimately win the right to keep the money, they are supposed to actually litigate that not just decide on their own what to do with it these garnishment civpro wranglings are not my expertise so take with a grain of salt, but sounds plausible to me claude.ai/share/c454c9f7… …ge-just-flyingfish-108.mypinata.cloud/ipfs/bafybeie6…

0/ Today, the Ethereum Foundation finalized the terms of a 10,000 ETH sale at an average price of $2,292.15 via OTC. For this sale, our OTC counterpart was @BitMNR.