LibraryData and agents2019Design paperCorpus record
Kleros: a court that selects jurors with a Schelling-point vote
Kleros. Kleros.
Kleros publishes a court: jurors stake, are drawn to rule on evidence, and are rewarded if they vote with the majority. The majority is the output, not an external truth.
A reading of the project's public design document. Not a copy, not a benchmark, and not an offer.
Kleros publishes a court: jurors stake, are drawn to rule on evidence, and are rewarded if they vote with the majority. The majority is the output, not an external truth.
- Evidence
- Primary paper
- Re-measured
- No
- Assumptions
- 3
- Records linked
- 1
01 Claim ledger
What the paper is allowed to say
Each row is a sentence already in the study. The status is the same on every row: a model claim, not a live measurement.
Claim 01 · Paper model
The defect
A Schelling court can be coherent and still be wrong. Coherence is the mechanism. Correctness is an assumption about the jurors.
Claim 02 · Paper model
The proposal
Kleros publishes a court: jurors stake, are drawn to rule on evidence, and are rewarded if they vote with the majority. The majority is the output, not an external truth.
Claim 03 · Paper model
The mechanism
Jurors are drawn from a staked set. The draw is the randomness the paper specifies, not a vibe.
Claim 04 · Paper model
The bound
This note does not claim jurors are unbribable.
02 Three cuts
Observation, model, falsifier
A desk does not stop at the summary. Each claim is cut three ways, using only this study's own assumptions and checks. Nothing here is a new figure.
01 The defect
Observation
What the study says
A Schelling court can be coherent and still be wrong. Coherence is the mechanism. Correctness is an assumption about the jurors.
Model
What has to hold
You are reading the Kleros court repository. The yellow paper is the design argument. A hosted court with different parameters is a deployment.
Falsifier
What would retire it
What do jurors lose if they vote against the eventual majority?
02 The proposal
Observation
What the study says
Kleros publishes a court: jurors stake, are drawn to rule on evidence, and are rewarded if they vote with the majority. The majority is the output, not an external truth.
Model
What has to hold
You are reading the Kleros court repository. The yellow paper is the design argument. A hosted court with different parameters is a deployment.
Falsifier
What would retire it
What do jurors lose if they vote against the eventual majority?
03 The mechanism
Observation
What the study says
Jurors are drawn from a staked set. The draw is the randomness the paper specifies, not a vibe.
Model
What has to hold
You are reading the Kleros court repository. The yellow paper is the design argument. A hosted court with different parameters is a deployment.
Falsifier
What would retire it
What is the juror selection rule in the paper?
04 The bound
Observation
What the study says
This note does not claim jurors are unbribable.
Model
What has to hold
You are reading the Kleros court repository. The yellow paper is the design argument. A hosted court with different parameters is a deployment.
Falsifier
What would retire it
What do jurors lose if they vote against the eventual majority?
03 Sequence
One action, as an operating tape
- 01Jurors are drawn from a staked set. The draw is the randomness the paper specifies, not a vibe.
- 02Appeals add jurors. An appeal is more of the same game, not a trip to a state court, unless a particular deployment adds that.
- 03The result is a vote the contract can read. What a consumer does with the vote is the consumer's design.
04 Load-bearing
The argument, and where a pitch drops it
What the name has to mean
The cut
Kleros publishes a court: jurors stake, are drawn to rule on evidence, and are rewarded if they vote with the majority. The majority is the output, not an external truth.
Why it carries weight
If this cut is skipped, the paper's name is being used without the mechanism that makes the name mean anything.
Where it is dropped
This note does not claim jurors are unbribable.
What actually moves
The cut
Appeals add jurors. An appeal is more of the same game, not a trip to a state court, unless a particular deployment adds that.
Why it carries weight
If this cut is skipped, the paper's name is being used without the mechanism that makes the name mean anything.
Where it is dropped
The yellow paper is not a particular court's later parameter set.
What a later deployment may change
The cut
The result is a vote the contract can read. What a consumer does with the vote is the consumer's design.
Why it carries weight
If this cut is skipped, the paper's name is being used without the mechanism that makes the name mean anything.
Where it is dropped
A later client, parameter or reward formula is a different object from this paragraph.
05 Register
What has to be true
Model · Not re-measured
You are reading the Kleros court repository. The yellow paper is the design argument. A hosted court with different parameters is a deployment.
Model · Not re-measured
The document is the one at the source URL. A marketing page with the same brand is not this text.
Model · Not re-measured
No price, supply, yield, or adoption figure is added by this desk.
06 Divergence
What happened after the paper
The yellow paper is not a particular court's later parameter set.
A later client, parameter set, or reward formula is a different object. Cite this paper for the mechanism. Cite a primary release for the network. This desk has not re-run the proof.
07 Pre-mortem
What to check before you use the idea
- 0 of 3 marked on this browser. A mark is a reading note, not a pass, a rating, or a recommendation.
08 Anatomy
The paper, in the order a builder needs
The problem it names
A Schelling court can be coherent and still be wrong. Coherence is the mechanism. Correctness is an assumption about the jurors.
What the design proposes
- Jurors are drawn from a staked set. The draw is the randomness the paper specifies, not a vibe.
- Appeals add jurors. An appeal is more of the same game, not a trip to a state court, unless a particular deployment adds that.
- The result is a vote the contract can read. What a consumer does with the vote is the consumer's design.
How the mechanism is specified
- Jurors are drawn from a staked set. The draw is the randomness the paper specifies, not a vibe.
- Appeals add jurors. An appeal is more of the same game, not a trip to a state court, unless a particular deployment adds that.
- The result is a vote the contract can read. What a consumer does with the vote is the consumer's design.
What this page does not treat as proven
- This note does not claim jurors are unbribable.
- It states no case count and no stake size.
- The yellow paper is not a particular court's later parameter set.
Why the desk still reads it
Kleros publishes a court: jurors stake, are drawn to rule on evidence, and are rewarded if they vote with the majority. The majority is the output, not an external truth.
09 Lexicon
Terms, opened into the record
- Schelling point
- An outcome jurors are paid to coordinate on. It is not an oracle feed.
- Appeal
- A larger draw of the same game. It is not automatically a legal appeal.
10 Repository
Every linked record on this page
Underlined words open a page that already exists: a concept, a protocol profile, a failure record, or another paper. If a word is not underlined, this desk does not have a record for it.
Concepts
This is Blockchain Lab's reading of a public design paper. It is not the paper, not a copy of it, and not an offer of tokens, equity, custody or a partnership. Later network behaviour can diverge from the text. Nothing here is investment, legal or technical advice.
Research status: Design paper. Last reviewed: 1 October 2026. This is a reading of a public paper, not investment, legal or security advice.