Initial PR for Court focused whitepaper revision #22
Conversation
README.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| Since a ruling must aggregate input from all jurors, the following procedure is used to create a jury ruling and reward participants. | ||
| The amount of required collateral depends on the appeal round and is a multiple of the fees required to compensate selected jurors. In higher appeal rounds where more juror stake is selected to adjudicate the dispute, the base amount of collateral required will be higher. The amount of collateral required will be a multiple of this amount, 2x the base amount for the side which is reinforcing the preliminary ruling, and 3x the base amount for side which is appealing the preliminary ruling. These deposit do not need to be supplied by a single party, but can be crowdsourced. When a final ruling is reached, the collateral of the loosing side will be used to compensate jurors and reward funders of the opposing side proportional to their contribution. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In this section it seems that "collateral" is mixed with fees for jurors, while in the first round (the dispute itself) it says: "they will need to deposit an equivalent amount of collateral, along with initial dispute fees determined by the Aragon Court" (so there's a clear distinction between collateral and jurors fees).
Actually from this paragraph one may think that collateral in subsequent appeals is only meant for juror fees, but in Redistributing Collateral section below it says:
"If there was any appeal rounds before the final ruling, the total amount of collateral that was deposited for triggering each round will be assigned to the appealer supporting the final ruling."
All of this made me think, assuming in every round there are both collateral to be slashed/redistributed among proposer and appealer and fees to compensate jurors, that if we route (at contract level) all appeals through Proposal Agreements app (and then Proposal agreements app calls Court to raise the dispute) then we could collateral and fees separate in every round, so collateral would always stay on Proposal Agreements and Court wouldn't need to know about it. When Court would call rule function in Proposal Agreements, collateral would be redistributed. I think this would be cleaner as would keep Court agnostic about external collateral requirements.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Besides I wonder if routing appeals through Proposal Agreements could be something useful generally speaking for the Court, in the sense that an organization using the Court may want to control who can appeal (e.g., only shareholders of org, but requiring stake in DAI which anybody can have).
Actually the original ERC 792 interface says: "It should be called by the Arbitrable contract."
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The problem is that it wouldn't be possible for the ruling to be flipped if someone puts up collateral to start an appeal against the previous round's ruling, but no one puts collateral to support the current court ruling.
Apart from this, the collateral for appeals doesn't necessarily need to be the same collateral type as the one used in the Proposal Agreement (which could be an organization's native token for example). By making it the same token as the fee token, the collateral requirement can be proportional to the juror fee (without needing a price feed).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The problem is that it wouldn't be possible for the ruling to be flipped...
Hm, good point, although we could move this logic to Proposal Agreements.
By making it the same token as the fee token, the collateral requirement can be proportional to the juror fee
But what do you need it to be proportional? I may be still confused regarding collateral and fees, but the way i understand it:
- Collateral: any token the org decides (for instance their native token), from and for proposer and challenger. They put it and they have it slashed if they loose, they earn it if they win. Jurors don't ever touch it.
- Fees: got from ANT, paid by proposer and challenger, earn by jurors. Proposer and challenger never earn it.
That's why I think it's a good thing to have them decoupled, and that the Court is agnostic about collateral (another org consuming Court services may decide not to require collateral at all).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The problem is that it wouldn't be possible for the ruling to be flipped if ...
Actually I think the ruling could still be flipped. Everything would be the same, but the Proposal Agreements contract would keep info about collateral used in appeals, which would be redistributed on rule function.
Co-Authored-By: John Light <[email protected]>
Co-Authored-By: John Light <[email protected]>
Co-Authored-By: John Light <[email protected]>
Co-Authored-By: John Light <[email protected]>
* 'master' of https://github.com/lkngtn/whitepaper: updated capitalization consistency
Co-Authored-By: John Light <[email protected]>
This PR is intended to bring the Whitepaper in line with current research efforts. It is not a final draft but is much more consistent with current R&D efforts.