HIP: 68 Title: A Compromise to Forking: Implementation Strategy for a Second Arbitrator Author: arkayana.eth Status: Phase-1 & in need of further contribution Created: 19/09/2022
Establishing an implementation strategy and the requirements for a second arbitrator, in addition to Kleros.
I propose establishing a formal set of requirements, then seeking out an appropriate arbitrator which could operate alongside Kleros, rather than remove Kleros and the important services they provide to PoH. The second arbitrator can then provide profile verification services and dispute resolution as Kleros does which can be selected at the registration stage by the registrant.
This HIP seeks to be a comprimising alternative to the hotly debated HIP-49 that sought to remove Kleros entirely from the PoH ecosystem, recieving both avid support and rejection, as well as resulting in tremendous polarization in the community.
PoH is currently in a state of disarray. This has caused significant division and confusion among members of the DAO, mission board, and contributors, as well as a plausible, yet theoretical knock-on effect to the price of $UBI. The level of disagreement and personal gripe between key members of the protocol continues to disrupt progress and disenfranchise those interested in building on the protocol over the past year. Additionally, disecting the points of view on the forum and telegram channel is overwhelmingly challenging, and sourcing any productive, comprising dialogue is equally difficult, resulting in circular argumentation.
By having two arbitrators, this satisfies Kleros’ desire to remain an active service provider to the protocol, whilst also providing the ‘opposing view’ with an alternative arbitrator to use, satisfying their desire for a diversified arbitration team.
A second arbitrator allows for healthy yet friendly ‘competition’ in the form of comparable statistics benchmarking their own performance against Kleros’. For example, comparing rejection rates, registration rates, profile security, etc. This may result in collaborative improvement, evidence based critique, and increased effectiveness of arbitrators in the PoH ecosystem as they learn from each other and continue to build their own respective networks.
Increasing exposure of the PoH ecosystem and the PoH DAO to other protocols, DAOs, and companies, thus increasing diversity in the PoH protocol and bettering our reputation. This is extremely important if we are to ever capture the continued interest of major industry proponents such as Vitalik Buterin, Elon Musk, as well as creatives, developers, and eventually politicians, or social entrepeneurs, etc.
For this to be respectfully and democratically implemented, we need to first establish a list of requirements, taking into consideration the opinions of active parties of influence within the PoH ecosystem (i.e, Kleros opinion, Mission Board, Democracy Earth, and human voices in the DAO).
An incomplete list of requirements and goals for a second arbitrator:
- To provide adequate, provable sybil resistance in line with PoH DAO & HIP requirements
- To have publicly accessible data in order to monitor the effectiveness and fairness of the arbitrator.
- To have a point of contact or representative within the governing body of the second arbitrator to communicate with when necessary.
- To have a secure escrow system (if used)
- To have democratic and humanitarian interests at the core of their beliefs.
- To actively develop their arbitration system, even after implementation.
- For their operation expenses to be clearly illustrated and adequetly funded.
To avoid forking.
In my personal opinion this should NOT be our first, actioned response to heavily divided opinion, I propose to establish the requirements necessary to integrate a second arbitrator into the protocol, satisfying a number of needs on either end of the argument.
Addendum: Whilst there are many solid arguments for forking as a concept, frequently highlighted by the member Shin in the “Go Fork Yourself” article, I do not believe this needs to be our first resort. Much of the emotional, antagonistic behavior inherant in the bipartisan environment that arose over the past year appears to be the main driver for forking, rather than it being a mindful, diplomatic resolution.
For that reason, I cannot support that the fork would be done in good faith or with clear intent, at least at this current stage.
I endeavored to be as neutral as possible in this proposal, and those reading should be reminded this is a comprimise, so neither party will likely recieve full satisfaction. I can only aim to achieve a happy medium in line with my interest in diplomacy and mediation.
If this proposal is considered to be a viable course of action, I will continue to ammend the “Requirements” list until a consensus can be reached before concluding Phase 1, and certainly before any contact is attempted with external arbitrators so that we approach them with professional clarity.
In the far off future, I theorize that three arbitrators would be ideal in terms of governance and representation, although this is a personal opinion and out of the scope of this HIP.