Skip to main content
Status: Planned (Decision disputes with enforceable outcomes)
Justly is not only useful when disputes arise over payments or services.
It also applies when collective decisions break down. Governance systems — whether in DAOs, protocols, platforms, or digital communities — are built on rules, votes, and incentives. But real-world governance is messy: not every situation can be resolved by a simple on-chain vote or predefined logic. Justly acts as a human arbitration and coordination layer for governance systems when rules alone are not enough.

​
The real problem with governance systems

Most governance frameworks assume that:
  • rules are clear,
  • proposals are well-defined,
  • voters behave rationally,
  • outcomes are final.
In practice, this often fails. Common real-world governance issues include:
  • Disputes over whether a proposal was implemented correctly
  • Conflicts about ambiguous rules or edge cases
  • Claims that a vote was manipulated, rushed, or unfair
  • Disagreements after a decision has already passed
  • Minority groups contesting outcomes they believe violate shared principles
  • Grant allocations perceived as biased or low-quality
  • Parameter changes that negatively affect part of the community
When these conflicts arise, governance systems usually have no built-in way to resolve them.

​
How governance disputes are handled today (and why it fails)

Most projects fall back to one of these options:
  1. Core team decides manually
    • Centralized, opaque, and legitimacy is questioned.
  2. Social consensus on Discord / forums
    • Loud minorities dominate, outcomes are unclear, decisions drag on.
  3. Re-run votes
    • Expensive, slow, and often doesn’t resolve the underlying disagreement.
  4. Ignore the dispute
    • Leads to frustration, forks, or community erosion.
None of these approaches scale.
None are neutral.
None provide enforceable outcomes.

​
Why voting alone is not enough

Voting answers the question:
“What do the majority want?”
But it does not answer:
  • “Was the proposal executed correctly?”
  • “Does this decision violate previously agreed rules?”
  • “Is this grant actually delivering value?”
  • “Is this behavior aligned with the protocol’s intent?”
Governance systems need a dispute resolution layer, just like escrows need arbitration.

​
How Justly fits into governance systems

Justly integrates as a post-vote and edge-case resolution layer. It does not replace:
  • DAO voting,
  • governance frameworks,
  • protocol rules.
It activates when those systems fail to produce a clear or accepted outcome.

​
High-level flow

  1. A governance decision is made (vote, proposal, rule).
  2. A dispute arises about:
    • interpretation,
    • execution,
    • fairness,
    • or impact.
  3. A dispute is opened in Justly.
  4. Evidence is submitted:
    • proposal text,
    • voting results,
    • implementation details,
    • prior rules or precedents.
  5. Independent jurors evaluate the case.
  6. A verdict is reached.
  7. The outcome:
    • resolves the dispute socially,
    • and can optionally trigger on-chain actions.

​
Concrete governance use cases

​
1. DAO proposal execution disputes

Example A DAO approves a proposal to fund a project.
After execution, part of the community claims the implementation deviates from what was voted. Justly allows jurors to evaluate:
  • the original proposal,
  • what was delivered,
  • whether the execution matches intent.
The verdict determines whether funds are released, clawed back, or execution is considered valid.

​
2. Grant allocation and evaluation

Many DAOs struggle with:
  • subjective grant approvals,
  • favoritism,
  • low-quality outcomes.
With Justly:
  • grant recipients can be evaluated post-delivery,
  • jurors assess whether milestones were met,
  • future funding or reputation adjusts based on verdicts.
This introduces accountability without central committees.

​
3. Parameter changes and protocol disputes

Changes to fees, limits, or economic parameters often create winners and losers. When disputes arise:
  • Justly can be used to evaluate whether changes violate prior commitments,
  • or whether emergency rollbacks are justified.
This reduces emotional governance fights and adds structured resolution.

​
4. Community rule enforcement

Governance is not only about money. Disputes may involve:
  • code of conduct violations,
  • moderation decisions,
  • abuse of governance processes.
Justly provides:
  • rule-based, auditable evaluation,
  • legitimacy beyond “admin decisions”.

​
Why Justly works for governance

  • Neutrality
    Jurors are external and economically incentivized to be fair.
  • Legitimacy
    Decisions are transparent and based on shared rules.
  • Enforceability
    Outcomes can trigger on-chain logic or funding decisions.
  • Scalability
    No need for governance councils or endless debates.
  • Human judgment where it matters
    Without breaking decentralization.

​
The bigger picture

Governance systems fail not because rules are bad,
but because rules cannot anticipate every situation. Justly provides the missing layer:
A structured way for humans to resolve disagreements
without central authority
and with real consequences.
This makes governance systems resilient, not just decentralized.
Governance disputes may rely on Tier 3 or Tier 4 to provide stronger legitimacy and resistance to manipulation. See Dispute tiers.