Let me preface this with the following: I’m a long time Aragon follower. I want Aragon to work. I love the passion of the team, and I’ve been impressed by their capability to deliver well designed and functional software, as this is no small feat. From a technology perspective amazing things have been accomplished.
Now for the critical part: Personally, the participation from ANT holders so far has been a huge let down, and I have a very hard time imagining who would choose this network to uphold just decisions through the Aragon Court. How do others view this? What in your mind makes you confident that the court will be appealing to organizations needing the terms of high-value agreements upheld?
If the Aragon Court system has the participation levels of the AGP that voted to recognise the Network DAO and ANJ contract as official, then there will be 2.5% of ANT participating in the court. With 80% of that coming from 1 address.
Granted, 1 address does not mean 1 person, the keys could be controlled by a whole panel of highly educated and trained lawyers which people will be tripping over themselves to have their agreements adjudicated by. They just all let Bob manage the keys of their secret society of blockchain enthusiast law professors. But personally I don’t think we should rely on this.
Similarly, multiple addresses does not necessarily mean multiple people. It could be yet worse than 80% controlled by a single person.
Who would see value in having their disputes adjudicated by this kind of representation, i.e. 1 anonymous ethereum address? As it stands, this is the Aragon Court’s target market.
Furthermore, I’m interested in participating in this system. I’ve always had a fascination with justice and right and wrong. I tell people if I wasn’t writing software I’d be in law, so that’s why I’m here, at the intersection of the two in a community like Aragon. With ANT in my pocket to convert to ANJ. But as I understand it I face this:
The Aragon Court system is built to be a schelling game where a juror is incentivized to rule in agreement with the other 2 jurors, if they don’t their bond will be slashed and rewarded to the ruling majority of jurors.
As it stands, the other 2 jurors will overwhelmingly most likely both be controlled by a single entity holding the majority of participating ANJ. So as I understand it, if I do participate in this court my game will be anticipating and ruling in agreeance with 1 other entity, which isn’t what I want to be doing. And I have a hard time imagining organisations wanting to opt-in to this little jurisdiction either.
Am I the only one who has these concerns?
Thanks for reading.