Skip to main content
Status: Live (Public Adversarial Dispute)

​
The real problem (not a theoretical one)

Fintech and payment platforms handle millions of transactions between users who don’t know each other.
Disputes are not edge cases — they are an inevitable byproduct of digital payments. Common real-world scenarios include:
  • A user claims “I sent the payment, but the service was never delivered”
  • A merchant claims “the payment was received and the service was provided”
  • A peer-to-peer transfer is marked as incorrect or unintended
  • A user disputes a charge after receiving a product or service
  • Cross-border payments generate misunderstandings due to timing, FX, or settlement differences
These issues occur daily, especially at scale.

​
How disputes are handled today (and why this doesn’t scale)

Most fintechs and wallets rely on centralized dispute handling:
  1. The platform freezes the transaction.
  2. A dispute or chargeback process is initiated.
  3. Internal teams:
    • review transaction logs,
    • analyze user communications,
    • apply internal policies.
  4. The platform decides whether to reverse or settle the payment.
This approach introduces structural problems:
  • ❌ The platform is judge and party
    It controls the funds and the outcome.
  • ❌ High operational and compliance costs
    Each dispute requires manual review and regulatory oversight.
  • ❌ Slow resolution times
    Chargebacks and disputes can take days or weeks.
  • ❌ Limited transparency
    Users don’t understand how or why decisions are made.
As transaction volume grows, these processes become increasingly expensive and fragile.

​
The key insight: payments without neutral resolution erode trust

Payments are only truly final when users trust the system. Without a fair dispute mechanism:
  • users hesitate to send money,
  • merchants face uncertainty,
  • platforms absorb reputational and financial risk.
Traditional chargeback systems:
  • are slow,
  • favor certain parties,
  • and don’t work well for instant or cross-border payments.
👉 Fast payments require equally fast and fair dispute resolution.

​
How Justly fits into fintech and payment flows

Justly integrates as a neutral dispute resolution layer on top of payment rails. A typical flow:
  1. A payment is executed and optionally held in escrow.
  2. A dispute is opened if one party challenges the transaction.
  3. Both sides submit evidence:
    • transaction details,
    • service confirmation,
    • messages or receipts.
  4. Independent jurors evaluate the case.
  5. A ruling is reached based on predefined criteria.
  6. Funds are released, refunded, or reassigned automatically.
Justly operates:
  • independently from the platform,
  • transparently and on-chain,
  • without replacing existing payment infrastructure.

​
A concrete (very realistic) example

Peer-to-peer payment dispute
  • Amount: 200 USDC
  • Sender claims: “I paid for a service that was never delivered”
  • Receiver claims: “The service was provided as agreed”
With Justly:
  • Both parties submit:
    • payment proof,
    • conversation history,
    • any service confirmation.
  • Jurors assess:
    • Was the payment conditional?
    • Was the service delivered?
  • A vote is taken.
  • Funds are reassigned automatically according to the ruling.
The wallet or fintech platform does not intervene directly.

​
Clear benefits for fintechs and wallets

For the platform
  • Lower dispute handling and chargeback costs.
  • Reduced regulatory and reputational risk.
  • Transparent, auditable dispute outcomes.
  • Better scalability as transaction volume grows.
For users
  • Increased confidence when sending payments.
  • Fair handling of payment conflicts.
For merchants and recipients
  • Protection against abusive chargebacks.
  • Predictable, rule-based outcomes.

​
Why this matters

Without effective dispute resolution:
  • instant payments feel risky,
  • user trust declines,
  • platforms become bottlenecks.
With Justly:
  • disputes become structured and manageable,
  • trust scales with transaction volume,
  • payment systems remain fast without sacrificing fairness.
Payment-related disputes are usually resolved using Tier 1 or Tier 2, prioritizing speed and predictable resolution times. See Dispute tiers.