Decision Dispute
Not all judgments involve a conflict between two opposing parties.
Some situations require a collective human decision to validate whether an action, proposal, or outcome should be accepted or rejected.
Decision disputes are designed for these cases.
Overview
A decision dispute enables structured collective judgment over a proposal or action.
Instead of resolving a conflict between two parties, jurors evaluate whether a submitted proposal is valid, acceptable, and well-defined according to predefined rules.
The outcome is enforced automatically on-chain.
When to use a Decision Dispute
Decision disputes are suitable when:
no direct adversarial conflict exists,
a proposal must be validated by human judgment,
or automated rules are insufficient or ambiguous.
Typical use cases include:
governance and protocol decisions,
validation of sensitive actions,
structured approval workflows,
human review of edge cases.
Participants
Proposer
The proposer submits a proposal, action, or decision for evaluation.
The proposer:
defines the proposal to be evaluated,
deposits a bond,
and accepts the outcome determined by jurors.
The proposer is never a juror in their own decision dispute.
Jurors
Independent participants selected through randomized assignment.
Jurors:
evaluate the proposal according to the dispute rules,
vote independently,
and are economically incentivized to act coherently.
Jurors are not influenced by the proposer and have no special privileges.
Decision Outcomes
Decision disputes produce one of the following outcomes:
Accept
The proposal is considered valid and acceptable.
The protocol executes the accepted action or records the decision accordingly.
Reject
The proposal is considered invalid, poorly defined, or unsuitable for evaluation.
Reject does not mean:
“refund the proposer”
Reject means:
“the proposal should not be accepted in its current form.”
In this case, the proposer’s bond is used to:
compensate jurors,
and cover protocol costs.
This mechanism discourages biased, low-quality, or malformed proposals without granting proposers voting power.
Bond Mechanism
The proposer deposits a bond when opening a decision dispute.
The bond serves to:
discourage spam or biased proposals,
align incentives between proposers and jurors,
and compensate jurors in case of rejection.
If:
no clear majority is reached,
or a rejection threshold is met,
the bond may be redistributed according to the dispute rules.
Dispute Flow (High Level)
The proposer submits a proposal and deposits a bond.
Jurors are assigned to the dispute.
Jurors evaluate the proposal and vote.
The protocol determines the outcome.
The result is executed automatically on-chain.
All steps follow predefined rules enforced by smart contracts.
Guarantees
Decision disputes in Slice provide:
Impartial evaluation: proposers do not influence voting.
Economic discipline: bonds discourage malformed proposals.
Transparent execution: outcomes are enforced on-chain.
Predictable structure: decision rules are defined upfront.
Slice does not interpret proposals or intervene in decisions.
Status
Planned
Decision disputes are part of the core protocol design and will be introduced in a future implementation phase.
Last updated