In which there is a disagreement regarding “followers” and “bots.”
Welcome to the Juris Project. We’re building a mediation and arbitration protocol for blockchain smart contracts. Start here if you want to know more about the project, and check out the first post in this series “Juris Protocol Use Case — Ziggy Stardust”. Continue on for an example from our whitepaper of how it will work.
100,000 Twitter Bots
Alfred, an aspiring London comedian, is looking to drastically grow his small presence on Twitter to reach new audiences. He currently has around 20k followers and dreams of hitting the low six figures. On CoinLancer, a popular Ethereum-based freelancing marketplace, he finds Barbara: a self-proclaimed social media guru in Chicago. Barbara advertises that for 4 ETH she can grow anyone’s Twitter follower count by 100k followers within 30 days. Alfred’s sold: the price per follower sounds much better than any other offer he’s seen. CoinLancer’s system helps Alfred enter into a smart contract with Barbara, set to programmatically test Alfred’s follower count in 30 days.
30 days later, Alfred’s follower count is at 125k — and rising. The test clause of the smart contract becomes active, and confirms that his follower count has surpassed the success criteria to pay out to Barbara.
To Alfred’s horror, 3 days later, he receives an email from Twitter notifying him that 80k of Alfred’s 125k Followers were deactivated. His Follower count now falls drastically short of Barbara’s promise. As far as he’s concerned, this isn’t what he paid for. He contacts Barbara. As far as she’s concerned, she’s fulfilled the contract as it was written and has rendered her services as agreed: she got him his 100k followers.
Relieved that CoinLancer suggested he include Juris CDK in the smart contract, Alfred activates the adjudication function in his Juris dashboard. All the Ether in the contract is temporarily frozen, and a request is sent to Juris to begin arbitration. He and Barbara have already talked about their disagreement, and they’re getting nowhere, so Alfred decides to escalate to a SNAP Judgement.
Worldwide, holders of JRS receive notification of a new contract in need of arbitration. As they enter their online Juris dashboard and examine the ticket, they’re presented with case details provided by Alfred and Barbara, as well as a copy of the smart contract in question and any associated logs. Deng, a JRS holder in Singapore, reviews the initial case brief. He’s unfamiliar with bot protocols and Twitter, and he’s not confident that he will be able to contribute to the discussion. He decides this case isn’t for him. But Juan, a social media manager in Acapulco, has dealt with this before — personally. He, and thousands of other token holders, accept the ticket. He reviews the case and contract, and swiftly casts his first vote. Within a few days, thousands of votes have been cast worldwide, discussions have taken place, and short opinions have been written and submitted.
Alfred awakes the next day and, to his delight, the SNAP has already rendered a judgement. His dashboard reports back that 64% of the High Jurists sided with him, 73% of the Good Standing Jurists. As a token holder — and occasional Jurist himself — he knows that’s a very positive outcome for him. He is also able to see a record of discussion, and the opinions submitted along with rounds of voting. He knows Barbara will also see the same.
He submits to assent to the favorable opinion cast by the SNAP Jurists. If Barbara assents also, the case will be marked resolved and he’ll be refunded his Ether. He and Barbara can part ways. He knows that if she doesn’t, a second round of arbitration, this time binding, may happen. Seeing thousands of votes rendered in Alfred’s favor, Barbara concedes and assents to the decision. The Ether tied up in the contract is returned to Alfred, and the JRS used to power the arbitration function in the contract is divided equally amongst all the arbiters who took part in the SNAP.