You find yourself drawn to vote on Dispute #1170. You marvel at old Greek marble sculptures, and a faint purple background radiates over the mainframe. You enter the Kleros gateway. It appears to be rather busy lately. You find a door with a label that reads "1170".
(t8n-arrive:"zoom")[[Open the door.->Room 1170]]As you enter the door, you are met with doubtful stares. It appears you were the last juror to be summoned to the General Court. Whispers and deliberation echoes through the chambers. The general sentiment is uncertain, the schelling point does not look nitid yet.
You stumble upon a huge body of evidence that has accumulated thorough the months. This dispute has gone on for a while and you are lacking context.
[[Read through all the evidence.->Read all the evidence]]
[[Skim through the evidence.->Skim through the evidence]]
[[Just go to vote.->Go to vote]]You grab one of the many bodies of evidence, and begin your study.
(Go to <a href="https://court.kleros.io/cases/1170">Court - 1170</a> and read all the Evidence)
[[Skim through the evidence.->Skim through the evidence]]
[[Go to vote.->Go to vote]]
You quickly skim through all the pieces of evidence and extract the key facts about the dispute:
* Claimant, Avraham Heisenberg, is a crypto-made millionaire. <a href="https://thedefiant.io/fall-fortress-dao-olympus-forking">Allegedly</a>, he was recently involved in <a href="https://twitter.com/valuekingdom33/status/1491089936128552960">a hostile takeover of the treasury</a> of //FortressDAO// that effectively stole 7M USDC.
* On <a href="https://etherscan.io/tx/0x75fdd66aa3afee116a8473fdf8b37f53a1875af3db7382c993004f57d71fa267">UTC 2022-04-01 12:26:13, Avraham took insurance on Unslashed Finance</a> of an unknown category.
* At the time he took the insurance, Unslashed Finance didn't have a policy document. Hovering the cursor over the policy link indicated that the policy was //Coming Soon//.
* 47 minutes after having paid for this insurance, Avraham <a href="https://wavesexplorer.com/tx/72VKDWoJZi5CKogjZgTvuyZxpH8S55bKZyC8KMPJkH52">initiates a transfer of 1M USDN from Waves to Ethereum Mainnet</a>. This means, it goes through a bridge.
* At that moment in time, USDN was worth ~0.995$.
* The bridge <a href="https://etherscan.io/tx/0xb129092b363c132aad85ac5f96896298f3e1329398750f02144a6e12a3c30bb2">delivered the funds at 2022-04-02 17:36:41</a>.
* This bridge usually takes around ~10 minutes to relay the funds to the other side, but ''took 28 hours'' in the span of this incident.
* Avraham <a href="https://etherscan.io/tx/0x2389f764e93060045fa77e6d487bc3ff72689201c2e4c8c1e3de46de49feb875">sold the 1M USDN in 36 minutes after receiving them</a>.
* USDN was worth ~0.978$ at the time he sold. So, if Avraham had been able to sell the funds at the time he initialized the bridging process, he would've obtained an additional 16338$.
* Avraham files an insurance claim in Unslashed Finance for 16338$ value in ETH (at time he filed the claim), ''5.105625 ETH'') in 2022-04-06 22:46, 4 days after the event.
* The claim got challenged on April 13th. Kleros was the arbitrator, so ''Case 1170'' started on the Technical Court. At the time the claim was challenged, the //cover policy// was available.
The starting facts surrounding the dispute seem clear, but afterwards, the dispute unraveled more and more complicated as time went on.
* The bridge did relay the same amount of USDN tokens it received. But, as a delay occurred, the value of the token decreased during the bridging period.
* Challenger claims the loss wasn't covered because it was an speculative loss, or an unrealized gain, and that the bridge operated under proper conditions.
* Claimant summoned social media posts from Unslashed Finance as evidence the event was covered.
* It doesn't seem clear what policy to rule upon, as the MetaEvidence policy appears vague, and the specific policy acquired by the Claimant was not available neither at the moment he got the insurance, nor when the event happened, nor when he filed the claim. However, it was available when the dispute was created.
* The Court Policies have also been taking into account. The Morality clause of the General Court Policy has been invoked against Claimant, Challenger, and Unslashed Finance. The //state of the world// policy has been used to claim the //cover policy// must be taken into account.
* Meta arguments were thrown around back and forth, referencing reputational damage, the future of Kleros and FUD.
* As the dispute became more contentious, a whale allegedly affiliated with Kleros staked a large sum in the Technical Court, obtaining more than half of the voting power of that subcourt. It was suspected that 3 wallets are controlled by this whale.
The sheer complexity of the dispute is making your ears ring. Cold sweat runs through your forehead. You feel dizzy, think about your bag, and weigh your options.
[[Look for an exit.->Look for an exit]]
[[Go to vote.->Go to vote]]
A Kleros royal guard stops you on your tracks.
"Where are you going? You have not voted yet."
His military garments, along with his purple-colored AR-13 makes you think twice about trying to escape juror duty. Such is the Kleros life.
You backtrack onto the crowd composed of drawn jurors, and reconsider your options. You notice a suspicious ventilation duct behind one of the stands of the kleroterion.
[[Go to vote]].
[[Escape through the hatch]].You get just outside the voting chamber. You take a deep breath. Your heartrate pumps up yet again. You know how this goes, you will deliberate and decide, if your nerves don't get in the way.
While you find yourself in this entranced, deep focused state, you spot a familiar face.
"Greetings, it's been a while" -Socrates calmly mentions.- "Did you make your mind about the case?"
You sigh soundly in relief. This is the chance to get a most rational decision by utilizing maieutics, which will increase the chances you are coherent and reach the schelling point.
[[Talk to Socrates]]
[[Refuse his help]]"Hello sir!"
You are greeted by an oblivious Indian merchant. The room is noticiable dirty, and the walls had seen better days before being covered by curry stains.
"Sir many Kleros guests come to my shop, please buy from me."
You politely decline. Apart from local Indian foodstuff and an oddly high supply of Corona beers, it appears to include a terminal with Internet access.
<a href="https://app.uniswap.org/">Go to Uniswap and sell your bag.</a>
Check out [[The Block]].
You spot a staircase leading down to the [[Kleros Dungeon]].
Repent, [[and go back to vote->Go to vote]].You remove the ventilation lid, and sneak through the duct, shutting the lid off on your way. As you crawl through this cramped space, hoping for a better future, you listen to the echoing and muffled sounds of the Kleros Dungeons.
"You revealed your vote before reveal phase. How do you plead?"
"... well, innocent..."
You hear a sudden gasp, the whip cracks, and the screeching shouts of pain make you shiver, as you recollect what could possibly happen if you got lost your case on the Juror Misbehaviour Court.
Sharp, wooden hammer strikes can be felt above as you navigate the intrincate maze. You wonder how many disputes are taking place, and how much Justice is being delivered. You recall that Kleros does not sleep.
You reach the end of the duct, and jump off onto a diferent area of Kleros HQ. It appears you have yet another choice to make.
Go to [[The Block]].
Go to [[The Indian Bazaar]].
Retreat and [[Go to vote]].<audio controls>
<source src="https://vgmsite.com/soundtracks/age-of-empires-ii-hd-soundtrack/zrsdlupdke/01.%20Shamburger.mp3" type="audio/mpeg">
Your browser does not support the audio tag.
</audio>
You hear a bottle of beer being crack open somewhere. Shards of broken glass are laid accross the entrance. A whiteboard describing delusional data structures for bridging messages and drawing votes. Faint sounds of Age of Empires gameplay on the background. It seems like you found yourself at ''The Block''.
Federico greets you as he sips his Corona beer. "Just in time!" -he shouts- "take a seat, I just started my talk."
The audience consists of you, and a few developers that were forced to listen to Federico rants about taking over the United Nations again, and building sustainable products. Overall, it was quite nice, and it helped you forget the horrors of the court.
However, you feel empty afterwards. Federico offers you a beer to cheer you up.
"So... are you deserting from juror duty?"
You nod.
He drunkenly pitches you why you should vote in about 2 minutes. You don't feel too confident, but end up agreeing to it to disable the tension.
You just promised you will vote, so you have no option but [[Go to vote]]."Good"
Socrates serenity puts you in awe. Such a wise character, taking the time to run through your options, you could have not asked for more in this situation. Socrates has always been on your side in moments of despair.
"Let's start from the beginning. What is the root question you should ask yourself? As in, what is the main policy, from which all meaning is supposed to derive?"
You ponder...
"The subcourt policy. In this case, the General Court policy. Let's examine the clauses that could affect this dispute."
You both calmly go back to the tables displaying the evidence to be reviewed. Socrates picks up the <a href="https://ipfs.kleros.io/ipfs/Qmd1TMEbtic3TSonu5dfqa5k3aSrjxRGY8oJH3ruGgazRB">General Court policy</a> and starts reading. In an instant, he points out to one of the main clauses.
(b4r:"dashed")+(b4r-colour:black)+(background:white)+(text-color:black)[Jurors should not rule in favor of a side who have engaged in immoral activities.
...
Immoral activities include: Murder, slavery, rape, violence, theft and perjury.]
"It appears morality could be a decisive factor in any dispute. Would you say morality matters in this specific dispute?"
[[Explore morality]].
[[Morality is not relevant]]."How does morality weigh onto this dispute, specifically?"
[[Neither side engaged in immoral activities->Morality is not relevant]].
[[Both sides engaged in immoral activities]].
[[Avraham is a thief]].
[[Challenger is attacking the court]]."With that out of the way, we should concern ourselves with what the arbitrable application primary document is."
Socrates shuffles around the files on the table until he finds out the <a href="https://ipfs.kleros.io/ipfs/QmeTBY7jZe2ut5WjifNASADo3E4zBxkMd62WwBpXtwP9pg">policy included in the MetaEvidence</a>.
"It is known that 'arbitrable application primary document' is the file accessible through the field `fileUri` in the `MetaEvidence`, as this is what is shown to jurors according to the <a href="https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/issues/1497">ERC-1497 Evidence Standard</a>, which is followed by Kleros."
You can't help but feel admiration at Socrates' technical knowledge.
(b4r:"dashed")+(b4r-colour:black)+(background:white)+(text-color:black)[The policy begins as soon as the insurance token of the Unslashed Cover in question is in the insured address]
(b4r:"dashed")+(b4r-colour:black)+(background:white)+(text-color:black)[The policy ends:
* at the expiry date as defined on the Unslashed User Interface and smart contracts; or
* as soon as the insured address doesn’t contain the aforementioned insurance token anymore]
"From these clauses, we can accept that the event took place during the insured period."
You nod.
"The insurance category the insuree is claiming to have subscribed to is 'Smart Contract Integrity'."
You nod again.
(b4r:"dashed")+(b4r-colour:black)+(background:white)+(text-color:black)[The claim will be accepted under this policy]
"We can agree that //will// is to be taken as strong language."
You agree to this.
"Let us review the conditions for claim acceptance under the //Smart Contract Integrity// category:"
(b4r:"dashed")+(b4r-colour:black)+(background:white)+(text-color:black)[The claim will be accepted under this policy if:
* the loss is related to the Smart Contract Network described in the relevant cover policy; and
* the loss occurred due to an unauthorised, malicious or criminal act aiming at exploiting covered smart contracts’ code vulnerabilities; and/or loss occurred due to errors or omissions in code implementation, or unavailability or failure to access or process these covered smart contracts; and
* the loss occurred during the policy period.]
"Interestingly, these conditions are linked together by //and// statements. This means, that the claim will not be accepted unless these three requirements are met."
"Before getting into figuring out if these conditions are met, we need to define the terms that we will be using. Let us start with //loss//. In the context of this dispute. It seems to be implied by these conditions that there was in fact a loss, but, is that the case?"
You look at Socrates, a bit confused about the nature of this question.
"Do you think there was a loss? What does //loss// mean? Loss can mean different things in different contexts. First of all, let us address the nature of the //loss// endured by Avraham. The bridge did relay the same amount of USDN tokens that it received. The value, in the USDN unit, stayed constant during the bridging. However, another value, the value in USDC units he would have obtained by selling USDN, changed during the course of the event."
"This type of loss is known as //speculative loss//. Sometimes it takes the form of loss of value, and other times it takes the form of //unrealized gains//. It can be covered in specialized types of insurance, such as //financial insurance//."
"However, this is not the only type of loss that took place. Another, less harmful but more basic form of loss that occurred here was the //cost of capital//. Due to not being able to dispose of his funds during the bridging, Avraham lost a tangible, certain and unspeculative gain. During that time, he could have loaned or rented the funds in safe ways to obtain an interest rate."
"The default type of loss coverage you can expect from a //Smart Contract Integrity// insurance is, coverage for Smart Contract ''exploits''. It could cover a variety of loss types, such as the //cost of capital// of bridging the assets for an unexpectedly high amount of time. But, it is courageous to assume that an //speculative// loss would be covered by default, without it being stated explicitly."
"You must realize that words can have different meanings, and malicious actors could simultaneously use different meanings under the same context, to navigate different conditions as it is convenient for them. Unless you stay vigilant and enforce a consistent meaning across the entire argument, you will be vulnerable to these rhetorical attacks."
You nod, excited at this realization, and ponder on the meaning of loss. You notice a few other jurors have been sitting around, listening to your deliberance with Socrates.
"I must now ask, is it your conclusion that the //loss// that occurred in the disputed event, is the same as the notion of //loss// that is being insured under //Smart Contract Integrity//? Was there a //Smart Contract Integrity loss//?"
[[There was a loss]]
[[There was not a loss]]
"If you think both parties' actions are immoral enough to trigger the immorality clause, then the clause also states:"
(b4r:"dashed")+(b4r-colour:black)+(background:white)+(text-color:black)
[...
“Refuse to arbitrate” should be used for disputes where both sides of the dispute have engaged in activities which are immoral
...]
"It only follows as a consequence to ''Refuse to Arbitrate''.
[[The Juror Duty]]."It is true Avraham engaged in a scandal publicly flagged as a scam. But, is this fact outside the sphere of concerns of the dispute, or should it be taken into account?"
"It also should be taken into consideration that the condition of being engaged in immoral activities is broad and easy to trigger. Consider, if your objective is to be coherent, you also should factor the likelyhood of other jurors following the same reasoning."
[[Reject due to morality]].
[[Avraham being a thief is no grounds for rejection->Morality is not relevant]].Socrates shakes his head.
"But, the challenger of the claim is not one of the //sides// of the dispute. The //sides// are the claimant, Avraham, and the insurer, Unslashed Finance. There are other parties involved, such as the challenger and the Spartan Bucket, but ultimately they are not sides of the dispute, even if they have vested interests."
[[Explore morality]]."Following this path of reasoning:"
* "Avraham could not have possibly taken this speculative action without the stolen funds, so the 1M USDN should be considered coming from an ilegitimate source."
* "It would be immoral to provide insurance for stolen funds, because that would assume taking funds from the Spartan Bucket onto a thief."
* "Providing insurance for the stolen funds would grant legitimacy to them, in spite of the victims of FortressDAO."
"Then, the only reasonable course of action is to ''Reject the claim''."
[[The Juror Duty]].You close your eyes and enter the voting chamber. You hope your line of reasoning is coherent enough such that most of the jurors will reach the same conclusion. You pick up a ''Reject the claim'' vote, and place it into the ballot box.
You are finally free, so you pick up your belongings, and say goodbye to your fellows. Socrates stares at you as you head towards the lights of the outer realm.
<div style="text-align:center;"><img src="https://s3-img.pixpa.com/com/large/636507/1647066829-695007-klerosbrotherhood.jpeg" height="500"/></div>"If there was a loss, and this is the type of //loss// covered by the policy..."
Socrates ponders for a bit.
"Let us evaluate the three conditions, at least superficially. Remember, these three conditions must hold true."
(b4r:"dashed")+(b4r-colour:black)+(background:white)+(text-color:black)[the loss is related to the Smart Contract Network described in the relevant cover policy]]
"What does //relevant cover policy// mean in this sentence? Is this //policy//, the same policy we are deliberately excluding from consideration? If so, it only follows as a conclusion that, since the loss cannot be related to anything described in a policy that does not exist, this condition is false. Do you agree?"
[[A condition was false]]
[[First condition is true]]Socrates takes another look at the policy.
"If there was not a loss, then the only rational conclusion is that there is nothing to cover, ''Reject the claim''.
[[The Juror Duty]]."I see. Allow me to address another General Court clause that is relevant."
(b4r:"dashed")+(b4r-colour:black)+(background:white)+(text-color:black)[Rulings should be made based on the “state of the world” at the time a dispute was created.
...]
"The cover policy for the insurance wasn't available:
* "When the claimant purchased the insurance"
* "At no time during the extent of the event"
* "When the claim was submitted"
"However, at the time the claim was challenged, the insurance policy was published and available."
"The `evidenceDisplayInterfaceURI` of the MetaEvidence was linking to an iframe controlled by Unslashed Finance, and it was displayed to jurors. At the moment the dispute was created, the following policy documents were available:"
* "The General Court policy, which we are discussing at this time."
* "The MetaEvidence, that had been available since June last year. It contains the //primary document//, that is, a sort of general policy to guide jurors onto interpreting the dispute. It also contains the `evidenceDisplayInterfaceURI`, an iframe meant to generate a dynamic source of truth for the jurors to rely on."
* "This iframe linked to the then available //cover policy//, <a href="https://static.unslashed.finance/policies/Vires+%2B+Wave's+Neutrino+SCs+%2B+USDN+Peg+Policy.pdf">you can see here</a>."
"The //primary document// states the following:"
(b4r:"dashed")+(b4r-colour:black)+(background:white)+(text-color:black)[In case of any discrepancy between a specific cover policy and this general claims acceptance policy, the specific policy should be considered as the source of truth.]
"Because the cover policy does, in fact, exist, it should be the document to be scrutinized for acceptance. If there was any acceptability contradiction between the two documents, the cover policy would still prevail. So, there is no point on studying the //primary document// any longer."
"But, you should also know that the claimant built their case on another assumption. Claimant side considers it inappropriate to consider the cover policy as canonical, and refuses to acknowledge it, as they identify it with theft or unfairness."
[[Accept the cover policy->Unslashed Policy]].
[[Reject Unslashed Policy]].You opt to look into the possibility of getting caught opting out of the //Vote Period//, wave goodbye to the Indian merchant, and walk down the stairs to the Kleros Dungeon.
<audio controls>
<source src="https://ipfs.kleros.io/ipfs/QmQqe9j9PmvmSocPoSsE4gNCcfo4vk7VGt8nMv8PpE8bK7/caves.mp3" type="audio/mpeg">
Your browser does not support the audio tag.
</audio>
Droplets falling from the ceiling onto crimson puddles set a uneasy rhythmic background. You shiver at the horrifying streams leaking through the cobblestone walls. What could it be? Cold sweat runs through your forehead as you remember the OpenVino juror-incentive program. Shipments of organic red wine have been continuously arriving by the hour ever since it was launched.
"H-help me..."
A jaded supplication startled you. Her face was oddly familiar, have you seen her before? You wonder how did she find herself on the Kleros Jail. You continue moving, ignore her further pleads for assistance.
"... I regret it... it works..."
Her voice fades out as you make it further down. Nothing out of the ordinary so far, these activities have been public and official ever since Kleros got legal recognition.
Suddenly, you are met with a familiar voice.
"... suggest that you delete this fork."
Your palms get sweaty. It doesn't seem to be directed at you, but Federico's stern voice can be heard in a neighbouring room.
Get out and [[Go to vote]]
Peek at [[Federico's heated conversation]]You hear a loud, blunt hit, and a muffled scream. You get closer and peek through the unclosed door.
"Not my business what happens in your mind, but I hope you do realize it's not appropriate for our little blockchain community to fork this."
Federico lets his rusty crowbar ring on the prisoner's head. From what you can make out of his disfigured face, he ressembles Luis Cuende. He appears to be wearing a provocative, shiny black spandex suit, and his arms are tied back to the chair.
Ever since decentralized dispute resolution became mainstream, Kleros has been legitimizing its actions. There is nothing Kleros can't outvote. The Cooperative offers rewards for keeping a healthy, competitive ecosystem.
"We will remove it! -Luis succeeds on getting his mouth gag out- "we will abandon Aragon at once, I promise! We will admit it!"
"Thanks for the understanding." -Federico says, turning around with a tipsy gait.
You lean back. Being found out would be bad right now.
The table rings sharp and metallic as he drops the crowbar. You hear a gun clicking. When you peek back, Federico is aiming a Glock at Luis' head.
"Deleting now"
Luis desperately screams and struggles on the chair, swaying back and forth. Federico laughs maniacally and loudly, spitting everywhere.
"Ok, screenshot it if you want. But then it's gone."
You hear an ear-deafening gunshot. You flinch but can't help to look at the Spanish scammer brain scattered accross the floor. You gasp nervously.
Federico turns around and spots you.
[[Run]].
You sprint through the humid Kleros caverns, as Federico unstoppably advances towards you, destroying everything on his path like a wild beast. In his drunken rage, he throws wine bottles at you with surprising accuracy.
You can barely dodge them, but as you advance, he cannot quite keep up at your pace. You manage to exit the Dungeons, and sneak onto the ventilation duct again.
You need to get on Federico's good side, so you must [[Go to vote]]."As you wish" -Socrates seems dissapointed at you following down an irrational path-. "Selectively choosing to not consider Unslashed Policy, with no reasonable way to reach that exclusion, shows your bias."
You gulp. The sage might be right, excluding the //cover policy// seems arbitrary at best. If the exclusion is absurd, any ruling derived from this reasoning will be absurd as well.
"If there is no insurance policy, would you say that the event is covered by insurance?"
[[No policy means no insurance]]
[[Only exclude Unslashed Policy]]Socrates looks dissappointed.
"Why do you find Unslashed actions immoral?"
"The claimant side built their case on the fact that Unslashed Finance allowed users to buy insurance without a defined policy, while keeping the right to define the policy after the fact. They deliberately chose to ignore the policy, labeling it as immoral."
"However, this //immorality// is not included as an example of immorality in the General Court Policy:"
(b4r:"dashed")+(b4r-colour:black)+(background:white)+(text-color:black)[...
Immoral activities include: Murder, slavery, rape, violence, theft and perjury.]
"All these activities have something in common: they constitute acts of aggression. While the wording //include// is not restrictive, from the context it is safe to assume that it constitutes a non-exhaustive list of aggressions."
"Leaving that behind, it is the claimant who put himself onto this situation. Avraham knew fully well that, at the time of acquiring the insurance, the policy hadn't been defined. We know this because he admitted and complained about it in the evidence multiple times, like in the <a href="https://ipfs.kleros.io/ipfs/QmWhkYEbvExgD51kF7fB9AWvMytHXPz3hZTTcmxdzhrNpy/Kleros%20Case%201170%20Evidence%20Submission.pdf">second page of this document</a>."
"If you agree with buying something yet to be defined, and what you buy is advertized as pending to be defined on the future, your despair when that definition does not suit your interest can be expected, but those emotions are not enough to constitute theft. He made his own bed."
"Not wild to assume is the fact that, Avraham purposedly acquired the insurance because its policy hadn't been defined yet, and got involved in a risky event as fast as he could."
"At the slightest, it is suspicious that Avraham got an //insurance without policy// ''47 minutes'' before bridging, as if he knew his assets were risky to bridge around. We know that his transaction was ''chosen'' to be delayed due to undisclosed reasons. He might have anticipated a delay, or confiscation of the capital bridged."
[[Stop considering morality and follow Unslashed Policy->Unslashed Policy]]
[[Both sides engaged in immoral activities]]
[[The terms surrounding the dispute were not fair]]"If you accept <a href="https://static.unslashed.finance/policies/Vires+%2B+Wave's+Neutrino+SCs+%2B+USDN+Peg+Policy.pdf">the Unslashed Policy</a> as the insurance policy of the dispute, one of the clauses has a clear interpretation towards reject."
(b4r:"dashed")+(b4r-colour:black)+(background:white)+(text-color:black)[The policy begins after an initial waiting period of 10 days that starts as soon as the insurance token `PTKN_Vires_USDN_00`, related to the `0xde8c7e21Cf8e46C68779A453F43b4D8d94eeB0Aa` smart contract address is in the insured wallet. Losses resulting from events starting or taking place before or during the waiting period are not covered by this policy.]
"There are three key pieces of evidence related to this" -Socrates points at a few known facts surrounding the dispute.
* On <a href="https://etherscan.io/tx/0x75fdd66aa3afee116a8473fdf8b37f53a1875af3db7382c993004f57d71fa267">UTC 2022-04-01 12:26:13, Avraham took insurance on Unslashed Finance</a> of an unknown category.
* 47 minutes after having paid for this insurance, Avraham <a href="https://wavesexplorer.com/tx/72VKDWoJZi5CKogjZgTvuyZxpH8S55bKZyC8KMPJkH52">initiates a transfer of 1M USDN from Waves to Ethereum Mainnet</a>. This means, it goes through a bridge.
* The bridge <a href="https://etherscan.io/tx/0xb129092b363c132aad85ac5f96896298f3e1329398750f02144a6e12a3c30bb2">delivered the funds at 2022-04-02 17:36:41</a>.
"It is clear the entire loss event ellapsed during the waiting period. On the first transaction, Avraham received the insurance token `PTKN_Vires_USDN_00`, and the waiting period begun. From that moment in time, the waiting period would have finished in UTC 2022-04-11 12:26:13."
"Both the moment the tokens got to the Waves side of the bridge, and the moment they left the Ethereum side of the bridge occurred within the waiting period."
You nod, this seems obvious.
"The clause is crystal clear about the losses not being covered, since the losses came from an event that occurred within this period. There is only one coherent vote from this line of reason, ''Reject the claim''."
You are glad. This chain of reasoning was easy to follow, and you feel like many other jurors will converge on this as a schelling point.
[[The Juror Duty]]
[[The Juror Duty]] "By only considering General Court Policy and the primary document, there's something to get out of the way right now. The insured event was related to the Waves Bridge. There is no explicit mention of the Waves Bridge, or any bridges at all in the //primary document//. If you are excluding the Unslashed Policy, that means that nowhere in the dispute are bridges ''explicitly'' stated to be insured."
"Does that affect your judgement?"
[[Bridge not mentioned means it's not covered]]
[[Bridge doesn't need to be mentioned->Asessing the loss]]
[[The Juror Duty]]Since this condition was needed to accept the claim, it follows to ''Reject the claim''.
[[The Juror Duty]] Socrates ponders. "I wonder how do you justify the condition as being true. But, let us continue with the second condition."
(b4r:"dashed")+(b4r-colour:black)+(background:white)+(text-color:black)[the loss occurred due to an unauthorised, malicious or criminal act aiming at exploiting covered smart contracts’ code vulnerabilities; and/or loss occurred due to errors or omissions in code implementation, or unavailability or failure to access or process these covered smart contracts]
"This condition is made of statements connected by //or// words. If any statement holds true, the whole condition is true. But, the only statement the claimant has subscribed to here is just the last one, as the other do not apply to the case:"
(b4r:"dashed")+(b4r-colour:black)+(background:white)+(text-color:black)[ unavailability or failure to access or process these covered smart contracts]
"Claimant built his case on the bridge being unavailable during the event. Would you agree that this condition is, overall, true in the context of this dispute? It should also be mentioned that the bridge did relay the tokens properly after 28 hours."
[[Second condition is true]]
[[Second condition is false->A condition was false]]"Let us follow with the third condition."
(b4r:"dashed")+(b4r-colour:black)+(background:white)+(text-color:black)[the loss occurred during the policy period.]
"Since we were under the assuption the loss happened, and the MetaEvidence policy considers the period starts the moment the tokens are held, this holds true."
You nod, there is no discussion.
"Now, we should go back to discussing what is the nature of the loss. You already declared that there was a loss covered by the policy, but, what type of loss?"
[[Loss of value]]
[[Value was not available]]"As the value was not available during the duration, there are still two types of loss you can cover. The //capital cost//, and the //speculative loss//."
"The //cost of capital//, given this chain of assumptions, seems like the most plausible candidate for coverage. It is a safe and provable amount to compensate for the event."
"The //speculative loss// is a type of loss covered in specialized insurance services, within defined boundaries. It would be very convenient for the claimant to presume it is covered."
"Both losses cannot be covered at the same time, since you cannot perform an speculative operation while disposing of your capital at the same time."
[[Cost of capital is covered]].
[[Speculative loss is covered]]."How can you claim that value was lost during the bridge? It is certain that the amount of USDN send into the bridge on Waves was relayed back to the other side in Ethereum Mainnet."
You agree to this. In USDN units, the amount that arrived to the other side was within normal expectations.
"You are referring to the fact that the value in USDC of the asset USDN decreased during the time of the bridging. But, this //loss// is a //speculative loss//, and it seems unlikely to assume that a //Smart Contract Integrity// insurance will cover such a risky and expensive category of loss event without an explicit mention."
"In any case, you could make an argument of this being the case due to him not being able to utilize his capital, which was locked away due to it not being available."
[[The value in USDN stayed constant, so there was not a loss of value->No loss of value]]
[[The value in USDC decreased and claimant would have sold, but couldn't because his capital wasn't available->Value was not available]]"Well, if there was no loss of value, then it appears that you should vote ''Reject the claim''.
[[The Juror Duty]]"The //cost of capital// is, however, severely lower than the claim Avraham as requested."
Socrates collects his loyal abacus and computes the amount.
"Taking into account a 2% interest rate..."
"That amounts to a 0.000054% daily interest rate..."
"`1_000_000 * 0.000054% => 54$`."
That seems very low, you don't know quite well what to think of this.
"If the claimant can indicate what the current interest rate is, or what secure action he could have followed to obtain yields within reasonable safe strategies, he could get a better deal. For example, a 10% interest rate would have awarded him 246$"
You are divided now. You want Avraham to cover his cost of capital from the delay, but he's asking for an unreasonable amount.
"In this case, the disparity between the ''cost of capital'' and the ''claimed amount'' is too large, this claim should be rejected. However, this doesn't mean the claimant won't be able to claim this loss. The insurance manager contract allows to change the claimed amount, so, if he thinks there's worth to it, he should just make a new claim after this one is rejected."
Well, now you understand what you have to do. You will just ''Reject the claim'', and hope he adjusts his claimed amount so that justice can be served on the future.
[[The Juror Duty]] Your colors are showing, and a bunch of skeptical jurors are lounging around, listening carefully to your conversation with the Greek sage.
"Let me put onto words the absurdity of the assumption that an insurance policy for bridging assets covers //speculative losses//."
"Suppose that it did, in fact, cover these losses. Then, imagine this strategy:"
* "Bridge asset A from Waves to Mainnet."
* "You intend to sell A for USDC."
* "If the bridge delays, you check how much value you would have obtained from selling A at bridging start. Sell the asset as soon as it arrives."
* "If you 'lost' potential USDC, make a claim and regain what was lost."
* "If you 'gained' potential USDC, then that yours to keep."
"Without taking bridging fees into account, this is a safe way to extract value for the bridge. Just trade, and the bridge will cover your losses."
"You may think that, it is the policy responsability to explicitly refuse to cover these losses. And that is also true. But, without explicit mention, you are assuming that the insurance covers //speculative losses//, when it was meant to cover the ''integrity'' of smart contract, this is, that they are ''not vulnerable''."
[[Accepting speculative losses for bridges leads to exploits, so don't accept it->Refuse speculative losses]].
[[If policy does not explicitly state otherwise, speculative losses are covered->Confirm coverage for speculative losses]]."It does not matter if you feel like the terms were not fair, made sense, or seem abusive. Your only task as a juror is to study the terms surrounding the dispute, interpret these terms around the events that are being disputed, and fill the gaps with reasonable default assumptions."
"You are not a ruler. You are a ''juror''. You cannot change the terms, not even when invoking you own perception of //fairness//. The terms of the dispute are the definition of what you must consider //fair// on the context of the dispute. The party that decides the terms and the party that checks if the terms apply are different."
"The insurer's job is to make a good and profitable insurance product. The insuree's job is to not buy bad insurance. Your only task is to evaluate the event on the terms provided on the dispute. Dealing with aspects that are out of your sphere of concerns is an invasion on the contractual agreement. You are ''not'' legislating."
There is no point on arguing with a sage, so you let it stand.
[[Agree and look onto the cover policy->Unslashed Policy]].
[[The insurer is still immoral->About to vote Accept]]."Weak sophistry. Your bias shows, and your intent is clear."
You avoid direct eye contact and try to ignore him. You can't help but start crying. Socrates made you realize you are a weak shill. How did you end up like this? He walks towards you. You are paralyzed.
"The only reasonable conclusion is that you are, in fact, Avraham."
<audio controls>
<source src="https://ipfs.kleros.io/ipfs/QmauxcpLPHSs6AC14XHPVjXu6wcjJDU3ivBJiRbqPXfUHt/music.mp3" type="audio/mpeg">
Your browser does not support the audio tag.
</audio>
Socrates pulls off your mask and reveals your nosy visage. The jury exclaims, and a sound applause engulfs the area.
"Order, order." -the judge slams the wooden hammer on the table-. "This dispute is settled, then. I expect the jury to converge on the correct vote of ''Reject the claim''."
You recoil as you are found out. Your attack to the court didn't succeed. The Kleros Police is promptly dispatched and you are taken to a Juror Misbehaviour investigation.
You find yourself trapped in a cell in the ''Kleros Dungeons'', still shocked at the current turn of events. You will use this time to reflect on your actions, and hopefully make it out alive.
<div style="text-align:center;">
<h1>Bad End</h1>
<img src="https://i.imgur.com/1IxgKov.gif" height="400"/>
</div>
"Why do you want to exclude the //cover policy//?"
"The claimant made the case that it is not //fair// for an insurance provider to change the terms of a policy after you've subscribed to one. That may be true, but perceived //fairness// is not a metric jurors can take into account."
"Also, that example is deceptive, because the terms of the policy weren't //changed//, but //created//. Alas, there was not an insurance policy at the time the claim was created. You should ask yourself if making a claim for an insurance that ''has no policy'' is fair as well."
"In any case, the conclusion from the Claimant side is a rhetorical trick. Knowing there are no grounds for immorality consideration, they 'settled' on selectively considering the policy ''cannot be taken into account'', a wild assumption engineered towards reaching the ruling they need."
"What I mean is, from this point on, you should either accept the cover policy or, if immorality warrants it, rule against Unslashed Finance due to immorality. But //selectively// excluding the cover policy from the state of the world is not a rational option to take."
"There does not seem to be, apart from this sophistry, any justification to exclude the //cover policy// from the state of the world, given that the only default the jurors are told to follow is to consider the ''state of the world at dispute creation time''."
"Anyhow, it is now your time to choose based on this."
[[Unslashed is immoral]].
[[Morality is not relevant, consider the cover policy->Unslashed Policy]].
[[Just exclude Unslashed Policy->Refuse to consider Unslashed Policy]].Socrates finds it somewhat unexpected for you to accept that argument.
"I see. The knowledge was within you the entire time, I only made you aware. Then, if speculation is not covered by the insurance, ''Reject the claim'' follows."
[[The Juror Duty]]."Let's reevaluate the assumptions and decisions that got you here:"
* "You disregard morality."
* "You selectively exclude the cover policy, despite it being available."
* "You assume that the //loss// from the primary document's //Smart Contract Integrity// category, matches the //loss// from the event."
* "Despite the cover policy not being considered in the state of the world, and the first condition needing this policy to exist to convey the meaning of loss, you pretend it is true.."
* "You assume that an insurance category labeled as //Smart Contract Integrity//, focused on security related events, somehow covers //speculative losses//."
* "You ignore the fact that such an assumption would make the policy exploitable and allow to drain funds from the insurer."
"All of these assumptions appear to be engineered towards reaching an specific ruling."
The jurors lounging around your conversation start deliberating louder and louder, making you feel in tension as Socrates is calling you out.
[[Avoid this conversation and go to vote->About to vote Accept]]You refuse his help and go directly to vote, hoping you land on the coherent ruling by random chance. You choose an option that seems vaguely appealing, and cast your vote.
You are finally free, pick up your belongings, and say goodbye to your fellows. Socrates looks at you with serene eyes as you head towards the lights of the outer realm.
<img src="https://s3-img.pixpa.com/com/large/636507/1647066829-695007-klerosbrotherhood.jpeg" />You nod and silently drop the conversation, and walk towards the voting chamber. You've made your mind already, discussion is futile.
[[Accept the claim]].
[[You're hiding something...->You are Avraham]].You confidently enter the voting chamber. You don't care if your line of reasoning is coherent enough, it only matters that you are right. You pick up an ''Accept the claim'' vote, and place it into the ballot box.
You are finally free, so you pick up your belongings, and say goodbye to your fellows, but somehow they don't wave back. Socrates isn't paying attention to you, either, you spot him deliberating with the other jurors.
<div style="text-align:center;"><img src="https://s3-img.pixpa.com/com/large/636507/1647066829-695007-klerosbrotherhood.jpeg" height="500"/></div>