Skip to main content
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
Some dispute types may support additional evaluation rounds under stricter conditions.

​
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.