> > What is the advantage of arbitration by contract over just having the > > Referee / CFJ system handle things? > > The Referee and judges didn't necessarily opt in to being involved in > every possible contract dispute (and it allows more flexibility than the > rules currently do). And, if we end up using contracts more, then it > allows spreading dispute resolution between more people than shunting it > all onto the Referee.
I like the idea of relieving the Referee's burden. I wonder if we should actually encode some relief in the rules somehow, because as I understand it, taking the burden off the Referee with a contract like this is an entirely voluntary measure. I don't know how that would work. Maybe finger-pointing fees? Actually, that could be a use for a limited asset. Call them Fingers, you pay one to point a finger, at most N Fingers exist at any given time, and they're gradually replenished somehow when there are fewer than N (auctions?). Not actually advocating for doing this now, but maybe if Referee load actually became an issue... > > Here's a thought. Punishing contract members with blots is a net loss > > to parties to that contract. Maybe a contract would wish to have its > > own punishment mechanism where the loss of the convicted is the gain > > of the other parties*. They would need some way to make decisions on > > that. They could use the CFJ system to determine whether an infraction > > occurred, but the Arbitration contract offers discretion in the size > > of the penalty which could be an advantage. > > Interesting idea, but I don't think that needs to be in version 1. Agreed, if you have customers for version 1 as written. - Falsifian
