Proposal: Create a Payments and Fast Escrow Court
TL;DR
I would like to propose a specialized Payments and Fast Escrow Court under the General Court.
The goal is to make Kleros more usable for everyday payment and escrow disputes by:
- keeping arbitration affordable for smaller transactions,
- increasing juror attentiveness through stronger staking requirements and penalties,
- shortening timelines so commerce-related disputes can reach finality faster.
This would be a narrow, commerce-focused court rather than a general-purpose venue.
Why this court is needed
As Kleros matures, it is increasingly well positioned to serve as the dispute-resolution layer for customer-facing applications.
That is especially true for:
- online payments,
- digital service transactions,
- lightweight escrows,
- milestone-based releases,
- small to mid-sized commerce workflows.
These use cases need a different optimization profile from slower-moving or more general dispute categories.
Two problems stand out:
1. Juror inactivity hurts fast commerce use cases
When minimum stake requirements are too low, passive capital can enter the pool without a strong expectation of active monitoring.
That may be acceptable in some contexts, but it creates friction for payment and escrow disputes where users expect quick handling and clear finality.
2. Existing economics can be too heavy for smaller disputes
For everyday commerce, arbitration needs to make sense for lower-value transactions.
If the effective cost of arbitration is too high relative to the underlying transaction, the user experience breaks down quickly.
Proposal
Create a new Payments and Fast Escrow Court directly under the General Court (Court 0).
The design should be intentionally asymmetric:
- low direct cost for end users,
- high responsibility and downside for jurors,
- shorter timelines for dispute finality.
The objective is not to create a cheap court in the abstract.
The objective is to create a court where:
- users can afford to use arbitration for real commerce disputes,
- jurors have strong incentives to stay attentive,
- finality arrives fast enough for payment and escrow workflows.
Proposed parameters
- Parent Court: General Court (Court 0)
- Minimum PNK Stake: 100,000 PNK
- Juror Fee: 0.0015 ETH
- Vote Stake Penalty: 5,000 PNK
- Alpha: 0.5
Proposed time periods
- Evidence Period: 3 days
- Commit / Vote Period: 2 days
- Appeal Period: 1 day
These windows are short enough to support commerce use cases, while still leaving enough time for parties to submit evidence and react.
Why these parameters make sense
High minimum stake
The point is to create a court where being drawn implies a real expectation of active participation.
For small-payment disputes, speed and attentiveness matter more than broad passive participation.
Low juror fee
A payment or escrow court should be usable for lower-value disputes.
If the cost floor is too high, users simply will not use arbitration for many real commerce cases.
High penalty relative to reward
If the direct reward is modest but the penalty for incoherent or inattentive voting is substantial, the court should become less attractive to passive or low-quality participation.
Short timelines
Payments and escrows are highly time-sensitive. Long resolution windows increase capital lock-up, user frustration, and platform risk.
Shorter periods are an important part of making Kleros practical for these workflows.
What this court would be good for
This court would be especially suitable for disputes involving:
- payment release vs refund,
- milestone payout disagreements,
- simple delivery / non-delivery conflicts,
- escrow completion disputes,
- low- to medium-value digital commerce disagreements.
This proposal is not aimed at replacing broader courts for more complex, slower, or more subjective cases.
It is meant to create a specialized venue for fast, repeatable commerce disputes.
Expected benefits
If successful, this court could:
- make Kleros more viable for everyday commerce applications,
- improve finality speed for payment and escrow disputes,
- attract a more attentive juror set for this category of case,
- lower the barrier to integrating Kleros into customer-facing products,
- expand Kleros usage into higher-frequency dispute environments.
Suggested roadmap
Phase 1: Community feedback
- validate whether this specialized court is desirable,
- discuss the economics of the proposed parameters,
- pressure-test whether the juror fee / penalty balance is appropriate.
Phase 2: Governance design
- finalize the target court parameters,
- confirm the parent/child relationship under General Court,
- confirm whether any timeline or economic adjustments are needed before a vote.
Phase 3: Governance vote
- submit the final court configuration for approval through the normal Kleros governance process.
Phase 4: Activation and monitoring
- activate the court,
- encourage early integrations to route suitable disputes into it,
- monitor usage, juror responsiveness, appeal frequency, and overall dispute quality.
Questions for the community
- Does Kleros benefit from a dedicated commerce-focused payments and escrow court?
- Is 100,000 PNK the right minimum stake, or should it be higher or lower?
- Is 0.0015 ETH an appropriate juror fee for this type of court?
- Is a 5,000 PNK vote stake penalty the right balance for juror attentiveness?
- Are the proposed 3d / 2d / 1d periods realistic for this dispute category?
- Should this court be narrowly limited to payment and escrow disputes, or should it also include adjacent commerce workflows?
Conclusion
I believe a Payments and Fast Escrow Court could help Kleros expand into a category of disputes that is both practically important and currently underserved by slower or more expensive court configurations.
The core idea is simple:
- keep access affordable for users,
- make inattentive participation expensive for jurors,
- optimize for fast commerce-related finality.
If the community thinks the direction is worthwhile, I would love feedback on the parameters and whether this should move toward a formal governance proposal.