[Phase 2] HIP #49 Change of Arbitrator

[clesaege]

Despite being quite different from the initial HIP, this HIP is still technically unsound and would result in the protocol self destruction trying to fix an unexisting problem (Kleros has never refused a modification of court parameters by an application using it and is unlikely to do it unless some clearly aberrant values were proposed).

Most of my comments on the initial post stands.

@jfdominguez.eth

The Kleros Arbitration smart contracts that are being used by the Proof of Humanity protocol and the Proof of Humanity DAO are currently governed by the Kleros Coop where they are the only entity that can define its parameters moving forward.

@jfdominguez.eth

Any potential dispute that emerges today either from the Proof of Humanity Governor or the Proof of Humanity DAO will go to an Arbitrator contract that ultimately has its parameters set by the Kleros Coop.

This is completely false. It is controlled by the Kleros DAO.

@jfdominguez.eth

The graph is also greatly missleading, it’s cherry picking on an uncontroversial low impact vote (thus low turnout). This was a proposal of adding a court for a project wanting to use Kleros which is very uncontroversial and almost guaranteed to pass.

A better display of Kleros voting power distribution would be the Proof Of Humanity court which looks like this:

@clesaege

@jfdominguez.eth

The incorporation of an Arbitrator dependent of the Proof of Humanity DAO would reduce the risk of the DAO being captured in a Governance Gridlock by actors that are not aligned with the core interests of Proof of Humanity.

This doesn’t make any sense either, Kleros doesn’t make any governance decision in Proof of Humanity.

@santisiri

Not sure what is the best path for juror regulation but if I may offer an observation about how jurors behave today, most of them seem to have a positivist interpretation of law / guidelines and my take is that the Humanity Courts would benefit from a more naturalist approach.

Well this doesn’t depend of Kleros, if Proof Of Humanity wants the rules to be interpreted from a naturalist approach, it can just make it in the rules.

@santisiri

Getting humans kicked out because of a misspelling or a few pixels, is not fair under a naturalist approach to justice. I think that Proof of Humanity needs to be inclusive, to many it’s very troubling to see so many unfair rulings. And saying this is not in detriment to the sybil resistant virtues of the protocol.

Again, this is not related to the arbitrator but to the policy. For example the policy was modified to allow 1 mistake in the address. The policy could also be modified stating something like “honest mistakes are allowed”.

I don’t believe we should do this as this would reduce greatly the efficiency of the challenger ecosystem (where they would spend time in “almost rejection” without being compensated). So this would mean either less security or higher deposits. But that’s a completely different topic independent of the arbitrator.

@fnanni

When people get outraged about a POH ruling it is usually not so much about the ruling itself or the rejection but about the submitter losing money.

We could have a system where submitters take insurance reimbursing them from honest mistakes. This would act as a defacto optional registration fee. The cost of the system is very low, with an average of 5$ (4$ for challengers, 1$ for juror) beside gas costs. Maybe some people would prefer paying 10$ (to take insurer profit and take into account that people taking the insurance may be more prone to mistakes than the general population) to an insurer than risking losing 130$.