Dispute Types

Justly supports multiple types of human judgment, depending on the nature of the conflict or evaluation being performed. Each dispute type defines:

• how participants interact,
• how jurors evaluate information,
• and how outcomes are enforced on-chain.

Not all dispute types are available in the current implementation.
This section describes the live dispute type and the additional dispute types planned for later versions.

​

Adversarial Dispute

Status: Live (Current Implementation) Resolves conflicts between two opposing parties: a Claimer and a Defender. Jurors evaluate evidence submitted by both sides and vote on a binding outcome that is enforced on-chain. Used for:

• marketplaces,
• freelancer and contractor platforms,
• fintech and payment disputes,
• peer-to-peer conflicts.

→ See: Adversarial Dispute

---

​

Decision Dispute

Status: Later version Designed for collective decision-making rather than conflict resolution. Jurors evaluate whether a proposal or action should be accepted or rejected according to predefined rules. Used for:

• governance processes,
• protocol-level decisions,
• structured human validation.

→ See: Decision Dispute

---

​

Rating Evaluation

Status: Later version A collective evaluation mechanism based on structured numerical input rather than binary outcomes. Jurors provide ratings that are aggregated to measure quality, performance, or contribution. Used for:

• open-source contribution evaluation,
• content moderation,
• quality and performance scoring,
• reputation systems.

→ See: Rating Evaluation

---

​

Extensibility

Justly is designed as a modular protocol. Additional dispute types and variations can be introduced over time without changing the core execution or incentive model.