Skip to main content
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 giving proposers special influence.

​
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)

  1. The proposer submits a proposal and deposits a bond.
  2. Jurors are assigned to the dispute.
  3. Jurors evaluate the proposal and vote.
  4. The protocol determines the outcome.
  5. The result is executed automatically on-chain.
All steps follow predefined rules enforced by smart contracts.

​
Guarantees

Decision disputes in Justly 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.
Justly 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.