Translating the Smart Contract Arbitration Standard
Twitter has surprisingly become a platform to exchange ideas. Moreover, some interesting conversations end up in a Medium statement.
Here’s the one motivating me to write about the proposal for an Arbitration Standard today:
I have spent the last months “translating,” more than communicating, ideas and game changer proposals. Blockchain implementations for Real Estate, Governance and Communities. Now I’ll try to do my best to do so with one of the most exciting creations: A Smart Contract Arbitration Standard for the Internet Age
Why am I excited about and why is it important for the ecosystem?
First of all, I think this is just BIG. In plain words, it could bring progress. One thing is having a great idea joining a vision. Another different thing is to have the proper scientific approach. This piece of work proposes the guidelines for building a standard for blockchain smart contracts. Any smart contract following these guidelines should be able to be adjudicated by any court.
The idea of Dispute Resolution in the form of a Court, Arbitration Platform or any mechanism you name to deal with this new reality, is something we all pursuit. Several projects are working around this idea. Which I find phenomenal. However, a constant challenge of your creation based on pure science is something not everyone is able to perform. That includes me during my times with Laudox.
How does the Smart Contract Arbitration Standard look like?
When the transaction happens purely on-chain, smart contracts are able to self-enforce, there is no need for arbitration. However, many transactions do not happen entirely on-chain. Some smart contracts refer to off-chain elements.
The proposed standard consists of two kinds of contracts: Arbitrable and Arbitrator. Every Arbitrable contract can be adjudicated by every Arbitrator contract. Using two contracts allows separation between a) decision making and b) its execution. In a sentence: Arbitrator contracts give rulings, and Arbitrable contracts enforce them.
Why two contracts?
By using two contracts, we can achieve separation between the ruling and its enforcement. The result of this separation (technically called Abstraction) is that neither Arbitrable nor Arbitrator knows each other internal processes.
“It allows dapps to switch from one arbitration service to another one easily. Or to allow their users to choose themselves their arbitration services.” See ERC 792: Arbitration Standard rationale
What I see particularly valuable is the ability for The Arbitration Standard to allow interoperability between dApps requiring arbitration. Eventually, all dApps will need a sort of mechanism to resolve disputes.
Time for more translation: The Security Check
So far I’ve tried to keep it simple. No Devs terminology and no technical examples. Let’s challenge my abilities to communicate properly what I want to translate.
I have stated above my preference regarding the importance of the scientific approach. Let me use the same quote I have used in previous articles by Professor Einstein “Don’t listen to the person who has the answers; listen to the person who has the questions.” ( Yes, I have to admit! I love that piece of knowledge). And that’s what happens with brilliant human beings. The day you stop challenging yourself you are just letting down your contribution to the community.
Driven by this force, Kleros CTO Clément Lesaege along with his Team of developers, and collaboration from some of the most talented minds in the community has challenged his outcome over and over again. The result is the formulation of this standard. A Work In Progress, yes, but one beautiful conceived.
Finding vulnerabilities in the system is like Formula One testing drives. If everything is not working close to perfection, get back to the Pits.
Can the judges collude openly? How many corrupt Judges do you need to take over a network? What is the potential outcome when the jurors are always the same ones? What if a juror post bonds simultaneously using multiple accounts? Can we find eventually trapped in a centralized scenario?
When you make feasible that playing the “Bribe Game” is more expensive and difficult than playing the “Honest Game,” you know you are bringing the right answers to your questions. And you keep going with the challenge.
My duty is to communicate. It is not to explain how to manage networks attacks. If I were to translate the scientific approach by which this Standard has been closing the gaps between “what IF and THEN we,” I´d just need to say this. Building something with such level of detail and understanding is what makes possible the “Next Big Things,” the ones we bet for.
If We make it possible we will have a Justice Revolution. A one that can be adopted for any dApp. And we will start with kleros.io using this Standard.
Disclosure:
I´ve been collaborating with Kleros for use cases discussions before. Then I start getting a more in-depth understanding. Now I am supporting this Standard proposal as I believe is a game changer. Finally, I am committed to joining the efforts and the future ahead for a Justice Revolution.
I think this replaces the official announcement of my position in the Team as the Communication Lead for Kleros.
Follow the conversation on Slack . Channel #arbitration-standard. Give your feedback and ask any questions. See you there!
Here are some resources to learn more:
