Skip to main content

Bonds and Slashing

Accepted Disputes​

When a dispute is accepted, the Oracle Council evaluates both the correctness of the proposed resolution and whether the resolver acted in good faith. One of four outcomes may occur:

  1. Resolver slashed; market resolves to a different outcome
  2. Resolver not slashed; market resolves to a different outcome
  3. Resolver slashed; market resolution is reset
  4. Resolver not slashed; market resolution is reset

If the real-world event has conclusively resolved and the resolver proposed an incorrect outcome, the Oracle Council will select either (1) or (2). If the event has not yet resolved in the real world, the Council will select either (3) or (4).

Notably, in two of these cases the resolver is not slashed. This flexibility exists to avoid over-penalizing participants who act in good faith, even when their proposed resolution is premature or incorrect. This level of granularity is essential for enabling the oracle to operate credibly and at scale.

Rejected Disputes​

If a dispute is rejected, the Oracle Council may choose between two outcomes:

  • Uphold the proposed resolution and slash the disputer
  • Uphold the proposed resolution without slashing the disputer

The same philosophy of restraint applies to disputers as to resolvers. Truemarkets is designed to reward honest participation, not punish good-faith challenges—even when those challenges ultimately fail.

Escalated Disputes​

If a participant disagrees with an Oracle Council decision, the dispute may be escalated by posting a $2,500 bond. This higher bond requirement exists to prevent low-cost griefing and to compensate the protocol for the increased resources consumed by escalation.

Once escalated, TRUE token holders arbitrate the dispute. Token holders vote on:

  • The correct market outcome
  • The appropriate slashing conditions for all involved parties

Under normal conditions, TRUE holders are expected to largely defer to the Oracle Council's judgment. The Oracle Council is a governance-selected body specialized in prediction market resolution, and its decisions are expected to reflect the market's original intent and optimal outcome.

The token holder vote primarily serves as a safeguard against Oracle Council collusion, manipulation, or failure. Absent new evidence or clear misconduct, TRUE holders should generally align with the Oracle Council's determination.

As with earlier stages, if an escalated dispute is deemed to have merit, the $2,500 escalation bond should not be slashed—regardless of whether the dispute ultimately succeeds.

Final Verdict: Attesters​

Attesters are the final arbiters of disputes within Truemarkets. They are provably reputable individuals whose credibility is independent of the protocol, selected based on demonstrated onchain governance participation, social reputation, or industry experience.

Once admitted, attesters may opt into jury duty and be randomly selected to resolve escalated disputes.

Escalation to attesters may only be triggered by a wallet controlling at least 3,500 TRUE tokens (or equivalent voting power). During the genesis phase of the protocol, no additional bond is required to initiate an attester vote.

Rather than relying solely on large bonds for spam resistance, Truemarkets uses token ownership requirements to gate access to attester escalation.

At this stage, attesters do not rule on an additional bond. They determine:

  • The final market outcome
  • The appropriate slashing conditions for prior dispute participants

Precedence and Deference in Arbitration​

The primary role of attesters is to prevent token holder collusion or manipulation—not to reinterpret market intent. Market intent is principally assessed by the Oracle Council.

Accordingly, under healthy protocol conditions:

  • Attesters should generally defer to TRUE holder decisions
  • TRUE holders should generally defer to Oracle Council decisions

This principle of hierarchical deference mirrors long-standing judicial systems, where higher courts typically uphold lower court rulings absent clear error or deviation from accepted norms. Truemarkets adopts this model to balance efficiency, decentralization, and credible neutrality throughout the dispute resolution process.