Marketplaces (E-commerce, P2P, Services)

The real problem (not a theoretical one)

In any marketplace where buyers and sellers don’t know each other, disputes are not an edge case — they are a normal part of the system.

Common, real-world examples:

A buyer says “the product never arrived”
The seller replies “it was delivered, here’s the tracking”
A customer pays for a service (design, repair, delivery) and claims it doesn’t meet the agreement
The provider claims they did deliver as agreed and the buyer is requesting an unfair refund
A product arrives but:
- it doesn’t match the description,
- it’s damaged,
- or it arrives later than promised

These situations happen every day, even on large marketplaces.

How disputes are handled today (and why this doesn’t scale)

Most marketplaces resolve disputes in roughly the same way:

Funds are held by the platform.
The user opens a support ticket.
A support agent:
- reads messages,
- reviews screenshots,
- interprets internal rules.
The platform makes a decision and releases the funds.

This approach creates several structural problems:

❌ The platform acts as judge and party It decides over funds it doesn’t own, while its own reputation is at stake.
❌ High operational costs Every dispute requires human time and review.
❌ Opaque decisions Users don’t clearly understand why a decision was made.
❌ Poor scalability More users → more disputes → more support → higher costs.

As a result, many marketplaces:

limit refunds,
systematically favor one side,
or simply ban users.

This breaks trust.

The key insight: escrow without arbitration doesn’t work

Many marketplaces rely on an escrow model:

the buyer pays,
funds are locked,
funds are released if everything goes well.

But when a conflict arises, a critical question appears:

Who decides who is right?

Without a clear answer:

funds remain stuck,
decisions become arbitrary,
escrow loses its purpose.

👉 Arbitration is what makes escrow work.

This is exactly the insight Kleros addressed — and what Slice applies in a more modern, fast, and UX-friendly way.

How Slice solves this for marketplaces

Slice integrates as an external dispute resolution layer.

A simple flow:

The buyer pays → funds are locked in escrow.
The transaction proceeds normally.
If a conflict arises:
- either party can open a dispute via Slice.
Evidence is submitted:
- product description,
- messages,
- receipts,
- deliverables.
A group of independent jurors evaluates the case.
Jurors vote based on clear rules.
The final ruling:
- releases funds to the buyer or
- releases funds to the seller.

All of this happens:

without the platform making the decision,
without internal human support,
with transparent, verifiable rules.

A concrete (very realistic) example

Design services marketplace

Price: 150 USDC
The client claims: “the design doesn’t meet the agreed scope”
The designer claims: “I delivered exactly what was requested”

With Slice:

Both parties submit:
- the original brief,
- the delivered design,
- the conversation history.
Jurors evaluate:
- Was the brief respected?
- Is the delivered quality reasonable?
A vote is taken.
Funds are released automatically according to the ruling.

The platform does not intervene.

Clear benefits for the marketplace

For the platform

Lower support costs.
Reduced legal exposure.
Auditable, consistent decisions.
Scalability without added friction.

For buyers

Confidence to pay upfront.
Real protection in disputes.

For sellers

Protection against abusive claims.
Clear rules from the start.

Why this matters (strategic importance)

Without fair dispute resolution:

users lose trust,
prices increase to cover risk,
or users leave the platform.