EstablishedCLM-0350 · checked 2026-10-23
Kleros was proposed in a January 2018 short paper by Clément Lesaege and Federico Ast and launched on the Ethereum mainnet in July 2018, starting with the 'Doges on Trial' curated-list experiment.[1][2]
Network polityOn-chain / algorithmic
Kleros (decentralised court)
A blockchain-based dispute-resolution protocol launched on Ethereum in 2018. Crowdsourced jurors, drawn in proportion to staked tokens, rule on cases and are paid by incentives designed to reward votes that match the final ruling.
Online (Ethereum, Arbitrum)
- Location
- Online (Ethereum, Arbitrum)
- Operating since
- 2018
- Governance
- On-chain / algorithmic
- Legal status
- Not applicable
- Economy
- Market
- Autonomy level
- Program within an existing state
- Uses AI in governance
- No
Kleros was designed by Clément Lesaege and Federico Ast (short paper, January 2018) and went live on the Ethereum mainnet in July 2018. Parties put a dispute into a smart contract. Jurors who have staked PNK tokens are drawn with probability proportional to their stake, review evidence and vote; jurors whose votes diverge from the ruling lose part of their stake to those whose votes match, and rulings can be appealed. Kleros also runs curated lists and escrow. Version 2 has been in beta on Arbitrum since November 2024. Design concerns include token-weighted selection and juror manipulation, which Kleros's own research addresses.
Timeline
- Jan 2018Lesaege and Ast publish the Kleros short paper describing a decentralised third party for disputes. [S1]Established
- Jul 2018Kleros launches on the Ethereum mainnet with the 'Doges on Trial' curated-list experiment (announced for 31 July). [S2]Established
- Nov 2024Kleros 2.0 beta is deployed on Arbitrum One. [S5]Established
- Aug 2025Argentina's Resolution 893/2025 lets approved private consumer ombudsmen issue binding rulings if the consumer accepts, according to Kleros. [S5]Established
Mechanisms in use
MechanismArbitrationParties submit a dispute to one or more privately chosen arbitrators whose award is binding.MechanismAI-assisted arbitrationDispute resolution in which AI systems triage cases, summarise evidence or propose outcomes, with or without a human decision-maker.MechanismDigital identityA government- or community-issued credential that lets people authenticate and sign electronically.MechanismFutarchyRobin Hanson's proposal: vote on values, bet on beliefs — elected bodies define a welfare measure, prediction markets choose policies expected to raise it.
Outcomes & controversies
A working crowdsourced court used for on-chain disputes and curated lists. Kleros reports pilots with Argentine public bodies and a fintech integration. Court V2 beta had more than 100 cases resolved by the project's own count.
Claims
EstablishedCLM-0351 · checked 2026-10-23
Jurors self-select by staking PNK and are drawn with probability proportional to their stake; jurors whose votes disagree with the final ruling lose part of their stake to coherent jurors, and rulings can be appealed.[1]
TheoryCLM-0352 · checked 2026-10-23
The designers argue that honest voting is a Schelling point: jurors who cannot coordinate expect others to vote for the true answer, so honesty becomes the best strategy.[1][2]
EstablishedCLM-0353 · checked 2026-10-23
Kleros reports that in 2025 it ran pilots with Argentine bodies, including cases supported by the Mendoza Supreme Court, and that Court V2 beta (Arbitrum, November 2024) had over 100 resolved cases.[1][2]