Horst Eidenmüller (University of Oxford – Faculty of Law; European Corporate Governance Institute (ECGI)) and Anna-Sophie Hochgürtel (University of Oxford – Faculty of Law) have posted Prediction, Not Adjudication: Why Crowdsourced Blockchain Decisions Are Not Arbitral Awards on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
In this article, we argue that decisions produced by crowdsourced blockchain dispute-resolution systems such as Kleros and Polymarket’s UMA protocol do not qualify as arbitral awards. Their defining feature is that they reward participants for predicting what the majority of other participants will decide. Arbitration, by contrast, is oriented towards finding the right answer through independent judgment, deliberation, and reasoned decision-making. Guessing may sometimes produce the correct result, but it is categorically different from adjudication. The fact that a crowd occasionally reaches the right answer does not transform a process of prediction into a process of judgment.
Recommended!
To receive new posts from Legal Theory Blog by email, get a free subscription to Legal Theory Stack.
Lawrence Solum