Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Only the disputing / challenging / appealing party should pay the fees? #31

marsrobertson opened this issue Apr 24, 2019 · 2 comments


None yet
1 participant
Copy link

commented Apr 24, 2019

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



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?


  • 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 #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

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:

Relation to another Kleros pilot

I was testing another pilot of Kleros: (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.


Where to discuss this issue?


This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Jun 17, 2019


Well done for improving the wording!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can’t perform that action at this time.