Fintechs, Wallets, and Payment Platforms
Status: Live (Public Adversarial Dispute)
The real problem (not a theoretical one)
Fintech and payment platforms handle millions of transactions between users who don’t know each other. Disputes are not edge cases — they are an inevitable byproduct of digital payments.
Common real-world scenarios include:
A user claims “I sent the payment, but the service was never delivered”
A merchant claims “the payment was received and the service was provided”
A peer-to-peer transfer is marked as incorrect or unintended
A user disputes a charge after receiving a product or service
Cross-border payments generate misunderstandings due to timing, FX, or settlement differences
These issues occur daily, especially at scale.
How disputes are handled today (and why this doesn’t scale)
Most fintechs and wallets rely on centralized dispute handling:
The platform freezes the transaction.
A dispute or chargeback process is initiated.
Internal teams:
review transaction logs,
analyze user communications,
apply internal policies.
The platform decides whether to reverse or settle the payment.
This approach introduces structural problems:
❌ The platform is judge and party It controls the funds and the outcome.
❌ High operational and compliance costs Each dispute requires manual review and regulatory oversight.
❌ Slow resolution times Chargebacks and disputes can take days or weeks.
❌ Limited transparency Users don’t understand how or why decisions are made.
As transaction volume grows, these processes become increasingly expensive and fragile.
The key insight: payments without neutral resolution erode trust
Payments are only truly final when users trust the system.
Without a fair dispute mechanism:
users hesitate to send money,
merchants face uncertainty,
platforms absorb reputational and financial risk.
Traditional chargeback systems:
are slow,
favor certain parties,
and don’t work well for instant or cross-border payments.
👉 Fast payments require equally fast and fair dispute resolution.
How Slice fits into fintech and payment flows
Slice integrates as a neutral dispute resolution layer on top of payment rails.
A typical flow:
A payment is executed and optionally held in escrow.
A dispute is opened if one party challenges the transaction.
Both sides submit evidence:
transaction details,
service confirmation,
messages or receipts.
Independent jurors evaluate the case.
A ruling is reached based on predefined criteria.
Funds are released, refunded, or reassigned automatically.
Slice operates:
independently from the platform,
transparently and on-chain,
without replacing existing payment infrastructure.
A concrete (very realistic) example
Peer-to-peer payment dispute
Amount: 200 USDC
Sender claims: “I paid for a service that was never delivered”
Receiver claims: “The service was provided as agreed”
With Slice:
Both parties submit:
payment proof,
conversation history,
any service confirmation.
Jurors assess:
Was the payment conditional?
Was the service delivered?
A vote is taken.
Funds are reassigned automatically according to the ruling.
The wallet or fintech platform does not intervene directly.
Clear benefits for fintechs and wallets
For the platform
Lower dispute handling and chargeback costs.
Reduced regulatory and reputational risk.
Transparent, auditable dispute outcomes.
Better scalability as transaction volume grows.
For users
Increased confidence when sending payments.
Fair handling of payment conflicts.
For merchants and recipients
Protection against abusive chargebacks.
Predictable, rule-based outcomes.
Why this matters
Without effective dispute resolution:
instant payments feel risky,
user trust declines,
platforms become bottlenecks.
With Slice:
disputes become structured and manageable,
trust scales with transaction volume,
payment systems remain fast without sacrificing fairness.
Payment-related disputes are usually resolved using Tier 1 or Tier 2, prioritizing speed and predictable resolution times.
→See how disputes are categorized in Dispute Tiers
Last updated