Human Jurors, Human Courts?

Now that there are about 200+ registered humans, 50+ pending registration, Should the humanity court juror eligibility restrict to registered humans only?

So ubi is really interesting fair, equal token distribution, but it’s still plutocratic and manipulable by the humanity court. Whomever stakes the most owns the court.

I suppose there are privacy concerns when tying one’s identity to their voting record.

Is there some internal kleros debate about which types of courts would benefit from unique human juror eligibility?

We will in a next version allow court modules which could be used to prevent jurors from being drawn multiple times using proof of humanity.

So I have been participating in the courts and sometimes — actually quite often — I have dissenting opinions. If jurors could deliberate and present arguments, perhaps the discourse and result could align more precisely with justice.

Would it be a crazy idea if jurors participating in courts requiring human registered jurors to have a limited number of dissenting opinions without penalty? Dissenting opinions can very often help bend the arc of justice towards good — the majority does not always lead to justice. I also realize some people try to game the system by waiting to vote and then voting based on other juror votes. I know its been mentioned to use some fancy cryptography (… ring signatures? ) to hide the vote outcomes? Is this a future direction?

Is there a clear vulnerability to encouraging slightly dissenting opinions like this (say 1 dissenting opinion every 10 cases is without penalty). This can only be enforced for human jurors, sybil resistant.

yeah also I know gas fees must be paid for… so maybe a couple penalty free dissenting opinions aren’t practical…

when L2 kind sirs? so many use cases waiting for lower gas fees…

can I burn my $ubi to cast dissenting opinions? who knows, just throwing out ideas without technical feasibility/know how (yeah someone must pay for gas).