A missing point in incentive design of Kleros ( I'm not sure! )

I was reading this paper : https://medium.com/kleros/kleros-a-decentralized-justice-protocol-for-the-internet-38d596a6300d

I think Kleros is a wonderful protocol and it works perfectly if we assume " Jurors were randomly selected from a pool of almost 3,000 candidates" but I guess this assumption is not correct because if I had X amount of PNK I want to make as much as money that I can with my investment in PNK so I would put all of my PNKs in a dispute that have least amount of PNKs in it and if we assume that every other juror is also a rational player (s)he would try to do the same with his(her) PNKs and in the long run for each dispute we gonna have very few amount of juror with high PNK stake in it and it means a VERY BIG PROBLEM!

Am I missing something? Is there any other conversation about this problem?


Welcome to the Forum.

Have a look here: https://medium.com/kleros/why-kleros-needs-a-native-token-5c6c6e39cdfe for more information regarding your question.

Feel free to ask away if you have any other questions!

1 Like


I think you are missing that jurors cannot “put their PNK into a [single] dispute”. You stake your tokens in a subcourt - that’s a court for specific types of disputes. Then jurors are randomly drown from this subcourt.

Your missing point is only a missing point when (i) every juror is about equally qualified for all subcourts and the disputes that occur therein and (ii) in every subcourt there are just very few disputes. At least that is how I see it.

Furthermore, when a case is decided by just one juror and the judgement is unfair the party who lost has an incentive to appeal.


Hello, thank you for your answer.
I thought that people stake their tokens in single dispute, now that I know they stake in the subcourt I guess there is no problem here but I don’t understand if jurors stake their coins in subcourt how they actually be selected.
I mean if they stake them in the dispute instead of subcourt that makes perfectly sense because after x amount of time some jurors would be selected for a dispute and others that didn’t selected will take back their coins but now I don’t know how they take back their coins because probably there are more than one dispute in each subcourt and they came in different times. Is there an interval in each subcourt that will choose jurors of disputes till that time or there is other mechanism? And if there is an interval is it dynamic or static? for example the probability of dispute occurrence is more likely to be in 9am-5pm than 10pm-6am.

Jurors get drawn from the juror pool at the same time that the dispute is created. They’re continually staked until they withdraw from the pool, so it’s not static and in rounds like it was in doges on trial. I have no idea about the probability in terms of time of dispute creation. It doesn’t really matter though, as jurors are staked all the time

1 Like