Live Demo: Juror Experience
This page walks through a real dispute resolved on Slice, using the mobile app and real wallets. The goal is simple: show how dispute resolution works in practice, from a juror’s point of view.
This is a real dispute resolved on Slice, step by step, from a juror’s perspective
The dispute
The dispute shown in the video is Dispute #9, titled:
“Freelance Work Not Paid”
Two parties are involved:
Julio Banegas (claimant), who states that freelance work was completed but not paid.
Micaela Descotte (defendant), who disputes the claim.
Both sides submitted evidence directly through Slice. As a juror, you see the same information any independent reviewer would see: descriptions, attachments, and context.
Jurors joining the dispute
In this demo, the same person participates as a juror using three different wallets, each one connected through a separate MetaMask account.
This is done only for demonstration purposes, to clearly show how majority and minority outcomes work.
For each wallet:
The juror opts in to the dispute.
A small amount of USDC is staked to participate.
The dispute appears in the juror’s current portfolio, indicating active participation.
At this stage, the juror has skin in the game.
Voting phase
Each wallet votes independently, based only on the evidence presented.
Wallet #1 votes in favor of Julio Banegas
Wallet #2 votes in favor of Micaela Descotte
Wallet #3 also votes in favor of Micaela Descotte
There is no coordination between wallets. Each vote is a standalone decision.
After voting, the dispute moves to the juror’s Inbox, labeled “Reveal now”, indicating that the commit phase has ended and the votes can be revealed.
Reveal and outcome
Once all votes are revealed:
The system determines the majority decision.
Jurors who voted with the majority are marked as winning jurors.
Jurors who voted against the majority are marked as losing jurors.
In this case:
The two wallets that voted for Micaela Descotte are in the majority.
The wallet that voted for Julio Banegas is in the minority.
Rewards and penalties
After the dispute is resolved:
Winning jurors receive a “Rewards pending” notification.
They can claim their rewards directly from the app.
The juror in the minority does not receive a reward.
This mechanism is intentional.
Slice does not reward being loud or early — it rewards being right, relative to the collective judgment.
Why this matters
This demo highlights the core principles behind Slice:
Jurors are real participants, not automated rules.
Decisions are driven by evidence, not authority.
Economic incentives align behavior without requiring trust.
Outcomes are enforced automatically.
For platforms, this means disputes can be resolved without internal arbitration. For users, it means fairness is not just promised — it is enforced by design.
Last updated