diff --git a/src/assets/policies/Bcd1WbSfBY5yYwnTrS5ddGemKuGt6WUyE2LptK1kBR4WhXudrM6Erd651VeGvtwmQaNmNC1C7JPVVy1bVomD8dn64i b/src/assets/policies/Bcd1WbSfBY5yYwnTrS5ddGemKuGt6WUyE2LptK1kBR4WhXudrM6Erd651VeGvtwmQaNmNC1C7JPVVy1bVomD8dn64i new file mode 100644 index 0000000..1c7a1d7 --- /dev/null +++ b/src/assets/policies/Bcd1WbSfBY5yYwnTrS5ddGemKuGt6WUyE2LptK1kBR4WhXudrM6Erd651VeGvtwmQaNmNC1C7JPVVy1bVomD8dn64i @@ -0,0 +1,5 @@ +{ + "name": "Blockchain", + "description": "**Court Purpose:**\n\nThis is the blockchain community subcourt. Disputes in this subcourt should be those that require that jurors have an understanding of the broad blockchain ecosystem. Cases in this court may come from varying aspects of the ecosystem and could also be from lower courts that have been appealed. For example, a case in the Token Curated Registry could arrive here on appeal.\n", + "summary": "" +} diff --git a/src/assets/policies/Bcd1X53whSqZorjim2tSVnG4Bg4Mui3wcUFzwSKFKUczKHsZiVaVEfXdnfos9XYJ5hJgWTUmHCGWkx2Da2xVxAAaqB b/src/assets/policies/Bcd1X53whSqZorjim2tSVnG4Bg4Mui3wcUFzwSKFKUczKHsZiVaVEfXdnfos9XYJ5hJgWTUmHCGWkx2Da2xVxAAaqB new file mode 100644 index 0000000..843b21e --- /dev/null +++ b/src/assets/policies/Bcd1X53whSqZorjim2tSVnG4Bg4Mui3wcUFzwSKFKUczKHsZiVaVEfXdnfos9XYJ5hJgWTUmHCGWkx2Da2xVxAAaqB @@ -0,0 +1,5 @@ +{ + "name": "Exchange Token Listing", + "description": "**Court Purpose**\n\nThis court serves as the final validation of Badge listing for verified projects listing on the Ethfinex Exchange using Kleros’ Token Curated List Dapp. \n\nThis is a high level, high stake court requiring deep blockchain knowledge, legal experience and / or a knowledge of exchange listings in general. Jurors are required to stake a large amount of PNK and should only do so if they are confident in the above capabilities.", + "summary": "**Guidelines** \n\n*Accept / Reject are examples of potential situations which could arise in challenged disputes. \n\nEthfinex \n\nCompliance and Legal:\n- There is a publicly available legal opinion stating that the token is not likely to be a security. Accept: The website of the project provides a legal opinion from a reputable law firm.\n- The token does not provide meaningful control over the issuer. Reject: Token holders control how the issuer spend its funds.\n- The token should not provide dividends or similar payments to token holders. Reject: 10% of the profit of the issuer entity is given to token holders.\n- Token holders should not share liabilities with the issuer. - Reject: The issuer claims that token holders should repay debt of the issuer if the issuer can’t.\n- The token should not carry a repayment obligation. Reject: The issuer promises to buy back the tokens 5 years after the initial sale at double the initial price.\n- The issuer should not plan to keep effective control of the project. Reject: The project currently needs a “coordinator node” controlled by the issuer to work. There is no plan of replacing this coordinator node.\n- The token issuer is not on the FATF High Risk Jurisdiction list as per the below link: http://www.fatf-gafi.org/countries/#high-risk Reject: The issuer is an Iranian corporation.\n- The token issuer has not been subject to previous successful enforcement action by a financial services regulator in any jurisdiction Reject: The issuer has been convicted of security fraud.\n\nTeam and Governance:\n- The token issuer’s directors are fit and proper persons (for example they have no previous record of fraud or similar dishonesty offences) Reject: The CEO of the project has previously ran an exit-scam.\n- The project leadership, whether as volunteer community members or \tfounders/issuers, are deemed to have the specialised knowledge and experience to deliver the technology roadmap. This could be evaluated for example with: (Only one accept is required)\n ○ prior track records of protocol or product development Accept: The CTO of the project was a Bitcoin core developer.\n ○ a clearly articulated vision and roadmap Accept: There is a whitepaper of quality describing the project and a realistic roadmap to complete it.\n ○ backing and support from advisors or investors who are familiar with the subject matter and relevant industries Accept: One of the top5 crypto-fund is backing the project.\n- There is a plan and governance structure in place for allocation of funding towards key aspects of the team’s roadmap, and or for future fund-raising Accept: The issuer is a cooperative entity and provided an estimate of project expense for the next 2 years.\n\nTechnology and Product:\n- The token issuer’s publicly stated intention is to ensure the core aspects of the project will be open source and therefore able to operate independently from the original development team. Accept: The website of the project indicates that the core software of the project will be released under MIT license.\n- There must be evidence of novel technology in development. - - This may be evaluated for example by demonstrating: (Only one accept is required)\n ○ a working beta product, Accept: There is a proof of concept of the product on a testnet.\n ○ open-source code in development, Accept: There is a significant amount of code on a public Github repository.\n ○ architecture diagrams or novel applications of cryptography and mathematics Accept: The whitepaper includes 5 pages describing a novel cryptographic protocol.\n- There is a demand for the token driven by an existing or future utility. This utility is obtained from obtaining, holding, participating, or spending the token. The team has identified a reason for the token to exist which is not just fundraising. Accept: The token is used for staking.\n\nTradability:\n- The token has passed a third-party review or security audit that deems it as safe, or be using a well-known audited framework (such as OpenZeppelin) without changes. Accept: The token has been audited by Trail of Bits.\n- The token source code must be available open-source. Accept: - The token source code is available on etherscan.io .\n- If the token can be frozen or minted, it must be evident that reasonable protection and security has been implemented around the private keys which control these functions (this may be part of the third-party audit).\n- Accept: Minting requires 2 out of 3 keys each controlled by a different project member.\n- The token has either a minimum market cap of $1m USD at the time of according to CoinMarketCap at the time of the token listing application OR if this is not applicable a minimum fundraise of $1m. Accept: The token is not listed by coinmarketcap but is linked to a token sale which raised 10 000 ETH when ETH was worth 150$.\n\nDecentralisation:\n- The total minted supply of tokens is not controlled by a single entity or group of entities under common control.\n- Accept: The total supplied is fixed.\n- Token ownership does not breach the following conditions: (Any reject is sufficient to reject)\n ○ No single entity owns more than ​50%​ of the tokens; Reject: The issuer kept 80% of the tokens.\n ○ The top ten addresses do not own more than ​70%​ of the tokens; Reject: Addresses 0x23bB460563D1F82C92Dd30cEf304949D099B7fb1 owns 50% of the tokens and 0x39413c5959CCB96ECc48Eb87D1Cff5e7d3B37B21 32%.\n- At least 25% of the supply is freely circulating in the market. Reject: 100M tokens were minted but only 10M are available to the general public. The 90M remaining are owned by entities who cannot currently sell them.\n- The team which issued the token should have made efforts to be transparent about details of the token supply, circulating supply, and any inflation, as well as their own ownership of issued tokens. Reject: The team provided a pie chart of token allocations. It displays 40% for token sale buyers, 10% for aidrops and 20% for the team. The founders allocated 30% of the tokens for themselves but did not put it on the pie chart." +} diff --git a/src/assets/policies/Bcd3cW1wGYuFZ52QBSLC9CVujQedXj1oY7Yv2KCCnaukt7QEFbWwu54t1Je1mJ95Ui2oa4WaYZUsgJiUhEEyHdbdzm b/src/assets/policies/Bcd3cW1wGYuFZ52QBSLC9CVujQedXj1oY7Yv2KCCnaukt7QEFbWwu54t1Je1mJ95Ui2oa4WaYZUsgJiUhEEyHdbdzm new file mode 100644 index 0000000..2da1732 --- /dev/null +++ b/src/assets/policies/Bcd3cW1wGYuFZ52QBSLC9CVujQedXj1oY7Yv2KCCnaukt7QEFbWwu54t1Je1mJ95Ui2oa4WaYZUsgJiUhEEyHdbdzm @@ -0,0 +1,5 @@ +{ + "name": "Non-technical", + "description": "**Court Purpose**\nThis court is for jurors ruling on challenged tokens from our TCR Dapp with Ethfinex. Challenged submission from the (Insert URL) Token Curated List will be resolved in this court unless appealed.", + "summary": "**Guidelines:**\n- Jurors should carefully check all required fields in each submitted case\n- Contract addresses are an attack vector and should be checked carefully.\n- Attached Logos should be PNG format with a transparent background.\n- Project names and tickers should be carefully checked.\n- In case of duplicates, only the first submission should be accepted. The most recent submissions appear highest in the list." +} diff --git a/src/assets/policies/Bcdxx1n9eqH7PYZTnHeBrBcHUMxKLrcLB3sD7XkhmTvSTDCt77Q3Ky3viXr9ptsp24YBPZozFi8mb2wraLohhguF42 b/src/assets/policies/Bcdxx1n9eqH7PYZTnHeBrBcHUMxKLrcLB3sD7XkhmTvSTDCt77Q3Ky3viXr9ptsp24YBPZozFi8mb2wraLohhguF42 new file mode 100644 index 0000000..8d61938 --- /dev/null +++ b/src/assets/policies/Bcdxx1n9eqH7PYZTnHeBrBcHUMxKLrcLB3sD7XkhmTvSTDCt77Q3Ky3viXr9ptsp24YBPZozFi8mb2wraLohhguF42 @@ -0,0 +1,5 @@ +{ + "name": "General Court", + "description": "**Court Purpose**\n\nThe General court exists as the top court in the hierarchy. All appeals made in subcourts will make their way to the General Court.", + "summary": "**Guidelines:** \n- Jurors should cast their vote with a suitable verification.\n- Jurors should not rule in favor of a side who have engaged in immoral activities (example: rule reject on “revenge porn” images even if they would otherwise fit into the category).\n- “Refuse to arbitrate” should be used for disputes where both sides of the dispute have engaged in activities which are immoral (ex: refuse to rule on an assassination market dispute).\n- Immoral activities include: Murder, slavery, rape, violence, theft and perjury.\n- Jurors should attempt to interpret disputes according to the \"spirit of the dispute\" unless the arbitrable contract or the policies of the subcourt state otherwise.\n- Jurors should interpret disputes without assuming the existence of gods, spirits or other supernatural beings unless the arbitrable contract or the policies of the subcourt state otherwise." +}