Crowdsourced dispute resolution can be effective to resolve a limited set of dispute types, even without direct financial incentive schemes, when the decision-makers and disputants are part of a community with shared norms, customs, and goals.

For example, the eBay india community court, which adjudicated negative reviews, never compensated sellers and buyers who served as jurors, yet always had a steady stream of willing participants. The designers of that system attributed this to ebay's active community and extremely engaged users. Those sellers serving as jurors knew they could find themselves facing unwarranted negative feedback in the future, and would need a robust system to resolve the dispute. They were incentivized to help their community, because it would help them, too. Incentives were aligned, although not in a directly financial way.

Similarly on resolvr.io, users will predominantly be other bounty makers and bounty takers, who may end up in a dispute over a bounty at some point. Building and maintaining a robust jury system benefits these users, although not in a direct and immediately financial way.

There may be some optimal mount of sats required to vote in a poll that deters sybil attacks and spam but is not so costly as to disincentivize participation. That amount may scale with the size of the bounty and is something we are exploring!

Resolvr.io is a nostr client that supports NIP-57 lightning zaps. Users who have specified a lightning address in their profile settings (previously on another nostr client or on resolvr.io) can use a browser extension like alby to send and receive zap payouts for bounties. Resolvr.io doesn't hold bitcoin at any point.

As for DLCs, that's on the roadmap and is heavy WIP. DLCs require a desktop app to manage and negotiate the on-chain contract, and to send and receive associated bitcoin. So, the manager app will feature a non-custodial wallet.

The Resolvr Project exists to create tools for sovereign individuals and communities. At no point will we ever make users custody funds with us.

Thanks!

See #348621.

Zap-to-post bounties is also on the roadmap to increase quality of bounty posts and deter spam.

We're constantly thinking about sybil attacks. For the alpha, to vote in a poll, users need to pay a decent sized zap to vote. For smaller value bounties, the sats to vote in a poll can quickly outstrip the bounty itself, and so it's simply easier to just pay out.

Additionally, users have the option to link their github accounts using NIP-39. This imports reputation and increases likelihood of getting good bounties, or having your bounties fulfilled. If a poll looks suspicious (i.e. many accounts voting with no history of activity and no github profiles), it can be disregarded without reputational risk. Zap dispute polls are currently advisory, not binding, and simply create a record of what the community thinks, which can be checked against zap receipts to see if the decision was or wasn't followed. So, a zap poll that looks fishy won't really effect a user's reputation.

Future dispute resolution tools on the roadmap involve the ability to choose an association or group of reviewers to vote, which can provide assurances of a vote's validity.

If anyone has further ideas on sybil resistance or anything else, please let us know! Discord | GitHub

Reviewers will receive fees for disputes they resolve. A review panel coordinator will construct 3-members panels to vote on whether bounties are solved. Users all have nostr npubs and verify their GitHub profiles. The coordinator uses the GitHub profile data to filter subject-matter experience and ensure bounty hunters are not voting on their own disputes. The panel vote will be translated into a DLC oracle attestation via Fedimint.

We are also exploring AI (llm) review for low-value, simple bounties.

More details on the architecture are in the GitHub readme!

Thanks. Drop into our discord and give us some feedback! We're working on deploying DLCs for the escrow system. Fedimint as the oracle that translates review panel decisions into attestations.