Skip to main content
The following section describes the scope of the current MVP implementation. Other sections of the documentation describe the full Justly protocol design beyond the current implementation.

​
Scope

The current implementation focuses on validating the core mechanics of Justly:
  • Human juries
  • Economic incentives based on game theory
  • Automated on-chain execution
  • Fast and reliable dispute resolution for low-to-medium value conflicts
All features outside this scope are intentionally excluded from the MVP and will be introduced in future phases.

​
Supported Dispute Type

Public Adversarial Dispute The MVP supports public adversarial disputes between two parties:
  • Claimer: the party initiating the dispute
  • Defender: the counterparty
Both parties:
  • submit evidence,
  • stake funds,
  • and accept the outcome enforced by the protocol.
The dispute is resolved by a group of anonymous human jurors.

​
Dispute Lifecycle

Each dispute follows a deterministic, on-chain lifecycle:
  1. Dispute Creation
    A dispute is created by the claimer, specifying the counterparty and dispute parameters.
  2. Funding & Evidence Submission
    Both parties deposit the required stake and submit evidence (off-chain, referenced on-chain).
  3. Juror Assignment
    Jurors are selected and assigned to the dispute.
  4. Commit Phase
    Jurors commit their votes using a commit–reveal scheme.
  5. Reveal Phase
    Jurors reveal their votes.
  6. Resolution & Execution
    The protocol determines the winning side and automatically executes:
    • fund redistribution,
    • juror rewards,
    • and penalties.
Current implementation: once executed, the outcome is final. Roadmap priority: add appeal rounds as a first-class escalation mechanism.

​
Jurors

  • Jurors are human participants selected through protocol-defined assignment.
  • Identity and anti-Sybil layers are part of the broader roadmap.
  • Jurors are pseudonymous to disputing parties.
  • Jurors must stake funds to participate.

​
Matchmaking

Justly uses coordination mechanisms to improve liveness and operational reliability. This coordination is designed to:
  • reduce stalled or abandoned disputes,
  • improve timing predictability for platforms and users,
  • and adapt to available juror liquidity.
Juror selection remains randomized and independent, and outcome execution remains on-chain. Operational timing is most predictable when juror liquidity is healthy in the relevant court/category. Longer windows remain in place as safety buffers for periods of lower participation.

​
Voting & Security

  • Voting is executed fully on-chain.
  • A commit–reveal scheme is used to prevent vote manipulation.
  • Roadmap: integrate Shutter’s API to support encrypted commit–reveal with automatic reveal.
  • All state transitions and outcomes are verifiable on-chain.

​
Tiers

Roadmap: Justly introduces standardized dispute tiers. Current implementation: disputes are configured through courts/categories and dispute parameters. Each tier defines:
  • number of jurors,
  • juror stake requirements,
  • party stake requirements,
  • fixed fees and protocol fees.
Tiers allow the protocol to support different levels of dispute complexity and economic risk while maintaining predictable resolution behavior.

​
Economics

  • Both disputing parties stake funds to participate.
  • Jurors stake funds to vote.
  • Jurors who vote coherently are rewarded.
  • Jurors who vote against the final outcome lose their stake.
  • The protocol charges a fixed fee per dispute and a percentage of the losing juror pool.
All economic flows are enforced automatically by smart contracts.

​
Limitations of the Current Implementation

The following features are not included in the current implementation:
  • Appeals or dispute escalation
  • Private disputes
  • Rating or decision-based disputes
  • Automatic reveal via Shutter API integration
These features are part of the Justly protocol design and will be introduced in future phases.

​
Design Philosophy

The current implementation prioritizes:
  • correctness over completeness,
  • reliability
  • and enforceable outcomes over subjective mediation.
This approach allows Justly to validate its core assumptions while preserving a clear path toward progressive decentralization and additional dispute types.