Adversarial Dispute
Not all conflicts require the same kind of resolution.
Some involve two opposing parties, competing claims, and a need for a clear, enforceable outcome.
Adversarial disputes are Slice’s core dispute primitive, designed to resolve these situations through neutral human judgment and on-chain execution.
Overview
An adversarial dispute resolves a conflict between two opposing parties:
a Claimer, who initiates the dispute,
and a Defender, who responds to it.
Both parties:
submit evidence,
deposit a stake,
and accept a binding outcome determined by jurors.
A group of independent human jurors evaluates the evidence and votes on the dispute. The final result is executed automatically and verifiably on-chain.
When to use an Adversarial Dispute
Adversarial disputes are suitable when:
responsibility or fault is contested,
the outcome is binary,
and a clear winner must be determined.
Typical use cases include:
marketplaces and peer-to-peer transactions,
freelancer and contractor platforms,
fintech and payment disputes,
protocol-level human arbitration.
Participants
Claimer
The party that initiates the dispute.
The claimer is responsible for:
opening the dispute,
submitting evidence,
and staking funds according to the selected tier.
Defender
The party responding to the claim.
The defender:
submits counter-evidence,
matches the required stake,
and participates under the same rules as the claimer.
Jurors
Independent participants selected through randomized assignment.
Jurors:
review the evidence,
vote independently,
and are economically incentivized to vote coherently.
Jurors are never parties to the dispute.
Dispute Flow (High Level)
The dispute is created by the claimer.
Both parties submit evidence and deposit their stake.
Jurors are assigned to the dispute.
Jurors evaluate the evidence and vote.
The protocol determines the outcome.
Funds and results are executed automatically on-chain.
All steps follow predefined rules enforced by smart contracts.
Appeals
Adversarial disputes support appeals through additional rounds.
An appeal represents a request for a new evaluation under stricter conditions.
Slice uses a funding-based appeal model:
Only the appealing party is required to pay the cost to open a new round.
The non-appealing party may choose to match the stake in order to participate in the appeal round.
If the non-appealing party does not match:
they do not automatically lose the case,
but they forfeit the right to earn appeal-related rewards.
This design incentivizes participants to financially support the outcome they believe is correct, without forcing participation or introducing asymmetrical power.
Appeal rounds may involve:
a higher tier,
more jurors,
or stronger economic guarantees.
Guarantees
Adversarial disputes in Slice provide:
Neutrality: jurors are independent and randomly assigned.
Economic alignment: incentives reward coherent voting.
Deterministic execution: outcomes are enforced by smart contracts.
Predictable structure: all rules are defined upfront by the protocol.
Slice does not interpret evidence, influence jurors, or intervene in outcomes.
Status
Live (Current Implementation)
Adversarial disputes are the primary dispute type supported in the current version of Slice.
Last updated