Only the disputing / challenging / appealing party should pay the fees?

[marsrobertson]

Pangea Arbitration Token Situation

1. I have submitted the token, paid 0.725 ETH deposit
2. Token submission was disputed
3. Challenge was rejected, jurors voted in favor of the original submitter
4. Now there is an appeal

Link: https://tokens.kleros.io/token/0xd3526b371e9337f59c0530a1d5ab8d1e461cd564f84115f006e3a46776ac4e4c

My perspective

1. I have paid the deposit
2. Jurors voted in my favour
3. I want to carry on with my life
4. If someone really wants to argue, dispute, provide more evidence - let them do this, I don't really want to be involved

What happens?

Appeal forces another party to fund (or crowdfund) the costs.

What should happen?

Only the challenging party should pay the fees.

Why did it happen in the first place?

Hypothesis:

• Too much game-theory.
• Too little real-life.

In real-life it is unrealistic to expect website visitors to crowdfund the appeal costs.

• Too little Ethereum adoption
• Kleros is experimental
• Current front-end does not display all the information, see also Provide more information about the timeline of the dispute #26

Bottom line: visitors of the website do not have incentives to fund an appeal as there are so many unknowns, I don't even know how to calculate expected value.

Craig Wright Peter McCormack lawsuit analogy

https://coingeek.com/dr-craig-wright-files-formal-libel-claim-against-bitcoin-podcaster-peter-mccormack/

On April 17, Wright’s legal representatives filed a claim for libel with the UK High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division.

• Craig Wright challenges status quo.
• He has to pay the court fee.
• Peter McCormack does not have to do anything.

Inconsistency between "challenge" and "appeal"

When creating an appeal - both parties pay.

When creating a challenge - only a challenger pays.

It is because of the original submission deposit?

Workaround 👹👹👹

Total Deposit: 0.7250 ETH
Note: This is a deposit and will be refunded if you are correct.

Update the wording:

"Even though you paid the deposit, even though jurors voted in your favour, you'll still have to fund 0.91 ETH appeal and you will always lose to someone who has way more ETH as they are able to outspend you anyway in the next next next next round of appeal"

See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutocracy

Relation to another Kleros pilot

I was testing another pilot of Kleros: https://escrow.kleros.io/ (use Kovan testnet for now)

Reported an issue: kleros/escrow#27 - it wasn't clear at all (far from obvious) that requesting the arbitration forces both parties to pay.

It is unnecessary information that both parties need to pay. From the perspective of a single party if the other person doesn't pay they just win the dispute.

As a poweruser who has loads of ETH and been through disputes I can bully a small guy who doesn't have 0.64 ETH.

Discussion

Where to discuss this issue?

• Telegram: http://t.me/kleros/54398
• Slack: https://kleros.slack.com/archives/C7ZBH0ZTM/p1556106193027500
• law (real life similarities)
• research
• governance
• game theory
• https://github.com/kleros/kleros-interaction (where smart contract source code lives)
• general court policies: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xxwUcmVwo0xS2rfVt8QJF571hjtvWCPa3e9B98IUXOU/edit

[marsrobertson]

Continued on forum: https://forum.kleros.io/t/proposal-kleros-cooperative-coommunity-fund-kccf-dao-and-funding-the-appeals/179

[marsrobertson]

Well done for improving the wording!