New players in the ADR industry: Kleros and other (digital) animals

If you don't know about #ADR by triggering a smart contract under #Kleros' provisions to solve a dispute between two or more parties in an arrangement, local or internationally, well: you have not yet realized what could the future of legal or technical services could achieve in shifting the market model for service providers and offerings. And this new draft for the supply models does not necessarily mean a run for expanding company sizing or the integration of all -or most of- the processes that are part of the supply chain segment industry as their main objectives firms must set in their strategic vision or mission plans. Now eventual new rules would convey. Innovation technology offers a different form of seeing things in the search for a better place on the beach from one tide to another and again. And it will be a process where the size means very little compared to self-organized processes drafted as a firm's ventures. After reading papers like this yellow one with the #kleros model available lines or others, you could also learn such a piece of truth: size doesn't matter, the cluster consensus does when discussing dispute resolutions. But remember this: Kleros, in the beginning, did want to face the lack of an internet-native dispute resolution system for the ecosystem of blockchain and solve it to thrive its primary goals: the blockchain ecosystem; nor less but no more. Then approaches like this post are, in part, a walk along the tightrope of formal and material analogies from the decentralized justice concept.

Here you have the yellow paper pdf file from the website (v.2.0.2 July 2021); click on the image to read it:

The model is very suggestive for resolving disputes if granularity fitting with the mechanism into conventional civil or commercial agreements, easing their enforceability. The approach to controversial in commercial or civil contracts, analyzing Kleros' cases, still has a long run time acceptance for the conventional international arbitration industry, except for those closer to customers' concerns either in the local or international playgrounds, which would be interesting for acting in big scale with customers in global markets and final providers' concernings. Three/Four first ideas as approaches to reading the yellow paper of July 2021: (1) the agency mechanism has several human intervention levers and keys to implementing the model in the hands of the contractual parties. (2) The #AI does not work independently and at will, except when the #oracles are triggered. But that's life, the Oracles do what is respected: they access real-world data to feed the smart contracts; Oracles could be algorithms, real persons (acting as curators), or both. (3) The #AI in the good chances are clear in cases where both parties are private in a contract for commercial vs customer purposes, but they could not be as clear as much when in a dispute where relationships involved parties -or a single one- holding sovereignty. (4) For practising as a juror, you need a wallet and buy #Pinakions (#PNK) [priced here: kleros by #coinmarketcap]. Naturally, the best for understanding all details: read the yellow paper first, and study the website, later.

Connections to game theory are equally interesting to understand the process and all the 'servo drivers' and 'gears' below the code line, which lead to the platform efficiency. Thanks to all the probabilistic explanations the paper provides, you would need to review your knowledge of such driver and maths language to catch the details, but no sweat here. In this part, I think there is a tendency to favour an address towards which the first decisions taken will point a line in bolds to light for future addressing; addressing subsequent casuistry may need to be more square with the sense of justice for the coming times (justice is as a liquid term as many others). It would be as solving the preference between precedents and new standards and being only in the first option's favour biases. To mind it for future understanding.

Accept this: institutionalized dispute resolution structures and persons in them may oppose (change resistance, Luddism) from means like this in ordinary settlements for arbitral disputes. Players and Practitioners. The players in the markets involved (the parties in the agreements and contracts) are the main characters that have to make this performance possible, and their closer service providers too. Practitioners in solving disputes mainly act as jurors, not claimant/respondent assistances. Those, the parties as the main characters, could be engaged for the targeted reasons of economy, fast-track performance and other ordinary virtues. These, the latter, would it be due to the new business model at the chance far from the dispute grounds of ADR Courts' ecosystem barriers (elitist, closed lists, etc.). New models need new practitioners with relevant new skills and outfits. Still, in the end, it all depends on the parties in the arrangement from which the dispute emerges when agreeing on settling eventual future controversies.

Not precisely for a specific business model, but it could be rather well if it improve into the mass of customer or commercial contract practising

Two business models are at stake. Someone would label this innovation system of using smart contracts and virtual processes as a "democratic ADR" system; I will not: democracy has very little to do here. I instead prefer to describe it as a sample for a "volume business model" while giving the conventional business model for ADR provision the label which matches the better: a "margin business model" with a different scope in clients, processes and providers. Specialization is at the core of each one; then, different providers and procedures convey better to different clients and customers. The challenge: when does each match first and better to different contractual typologies and fit the evolution in ADR system conveniences?

To end this idea: there will be those who point to many 'buts' it; rather more, I put this innovation closer in mind to the changes in the automobile sector at the beginning of the XX century while being an art-crafted activity and a market niche, due to the high entry costs, clientele, production process and final products and, then, #HenryFord came along, so everything changed.

Procedures such as those under a standard similar to #Kleros may allow a mass service provider model, with a final customized touch given by the jury members' qualification. In contrast, we could expect the traditional way of doing things to continue with good health: the vintage providers' taste in performing, connected to -so to say- 'art-crafted' ADR industry solutions and designed for the very few in the market. In short, different performance models go to other service providers to fit with different concerns and client/customer shapes. It may be the case by random that an Institutional Court takes a system procedure like this of #Kleros to take the leading role in the Court's services' infrastructure.

Well, even you might believe that Christmas time comes in the middle of July month, but whatever it happens with the above and for the long run, there could be a path at a different pace: maybe traditional ADR systems come to narrow their niche commitments. At a time, service provisions would end up opting for a better approach hand in hand with technological innovation from this last wave. From one kind of niche (margin) to another (volume) in a two-faced model system: -so to say- the luxuriant elitist scent of a service provider boutique vs -so to say too- the plain bourgeois fragrance of achieving a basic but to-the-point goal (the plain vanilla flavour service). Not as choosing a red or blue pill, but near and close to solutions as accelerated arbitral processes settled in several Courts, but quite better. It may be an issue of where and what for you to assign resources to the show-off firms or the SLPOs, but that alternative does not have an easy answer and requires a different post than this.

Use Cases?

One of the relevant themes to develop now is the use cases in the different contractual typologies. Naturally, only some agreements typology can access the first round, but there is a fantastic trip for transit to the new standard like this in solving disputes. Disputes around B2C and all related to customers' claims could be in the first line to improve, such as home rental, credit services or products/services to final consumers. In a more general scope, I put my bet for these sixteen others to improve step by step:

- hiring personal services of all kinds, B2C or B2B environments,

- B2C/B2B selling items of any kind either to clients or consumers,

- B2C/B2B credit lines/agreements,

- lease and lease-back property contracts,?

- construction agreements of any kind,?

- shipping/delivery agreements of all kinds and all transport means,?

- financing projects agreements and credit offerings

- venture capital investments,

- #ICOs, #DAOs, #DAIs, or similar,

- #SPVs, #REITs, #SPLOs, or similar,

- licences, franchises, commercial joint ventures,

- property entitlements on tangible or digital assets,

- commercial exploitation of any kind,

- statutory corporate dispute covenants,

- third-party managerial agreements,

- litigation funding, third-party funding disputes,

- Civil damages and contractual responsibility/insurance claims, and in connection to something said high above in the post, the first steps should be done wherein the insurance playgrounds.

_____

#kleros and #ethereum | #adr #disputes | #arbitration #performance | #practitioners and #players | #economy #sectors and #markets | #technological #innovation #opportunity and #chances | #luddism #taylorism #fordism #artcraft | #contract #arrangement and #agreement #standards