Transactional Confidence on the Blockchain

It’s evident that some are still unclear as to what happened during that chaotic period pre-launch and only know that ICC was changed to ECAF in the days leading to launch. What seems to be forgotten is that ECAF was referred to from inception and ICC was only inserted for a very short period.
The intent was always ECAF (the concept of an internal body): internal issues, internal dispute resolution. Dan’s vision was always to create a self-sustained ecosystem that would not rely on external courts or governments. He was very clear that we should do all that we can to ensure our chain is capable and able to thrive on its own.
The vision was to have a medium of recourse built within the ecosystem to provide transaction confidence/certainty for token holders, businesses, dApp developers and investors, and over the past months, the overall concept of dispute resolution has been lost and all that is talked about is the last form of dispute resolution; arbitration.
Going back to the intent of it all, creating a blockchain that was capable of handling enterprise solutions on the blockchain itself is what was promised and what was described in the whitepaper. The governed part of it was to ensure that small businesses had the trust they needed to use this chain and transact on it — trust came in the form of base layer dispute resolution. Creating a trustworthy environment in combination with technology capable of handling massive on-chain throughput is was the key to mass adoption. The human aspect was being introduced to the blockchain, and albeit this created challenges, it also opened it up to new possibilities and paved the way to having this project reach heights never seen before in the blockchain space.
We should be steering the conversation back to creating a scalable base layer dispute resolution system where on-chain disputes are resolved effectively and efficiently. Most being resolved by the end-user themselves through a diagnosis process and/or by the two parties assisted by an algorithm. This automated portion is what is currently lacking and creates a lot of stress as people see the current format as being unscalable. Arbitration is meant to be the last resort when all other steps have been exhausted — not the automatic go-to. Dispute resolution needs to be automated as the base layer.
We have examples of solutions that are used that are capable of handling massive amounts of disputes — this is where we should be focusing our attention and our efforts: creating a system capable of handling / integrating such systems so that we can have transaction confidence for end-users and small businesses alike.
Yves La Rose | EOS Nation CEO

