Dispute Types
Slice supports multiple types of human judgment, depending on the nature of the conflict or evaluation being performed.
Each dispute type defines:
how participants interact,
how jurors evaluate information,
and how outcomes are enforced on-chain.
Not all dispute types are available in the current implementation. This section describes the full design of the protocol and clearly indicates the status of each type.
Adversarial Dispute
Resolve conflicts between two parties
Winner/Loser
Live
Decision Dispute
Validate proposals or decisions
Accept/Reject
Planned
Rating Evaluation
Evaluate quality or contribution
Aggregated Score
Planned
Adversarial Dispute
Status: Live (Current Implementation)
Resolves conflicts between two opposing parties: a Claimer and a Defender.
Jurors evaluate evidence submitted by both sides and vote on a binding outcome that is enforced on-chain.
Used for:
marketplaces,
freelancer and contractor platforms,
fintech and payment disputes,
peer-to-peer conflicts.
→ See: Adversarial Dispute
Decision Dispute
Status: Planned
Designed for collective decision-making rather than conflict resolution.
Jurors evaluate whether a proposal or action should be accepted or rejected according to predefined rules.
Used for:
governance processes,
protocol-level decisions,
structured human validation.
→ See: Decision Dispute
Rating Evaluation
Status: Planned
A collective evaluation mechanism based on structured numerical input rather than binary outcomes.
Jurors provide ratings that are aggregated to measure quality, performance, or contribution.
Used for:
open-source contribution evaluation,
content moderation,
quality and performance scoring,
reputation systems.
→ See: Rating Evaluation
Some dispute types may support additional evaluation rounds under stricter conditions.
Extensibility
Slice is designed as a modular protocol.
Additional dispute types and variations can be introduced over time without changing the core execution or incentive model.
Last updated