UMA Arbitration Policy
UMA
For detailed information on how UMA's dispute resolution works, visit their website.
This arbitration policy is a dispute resolution mechanism that uses UMAβs optimistic oracle to verify disputes. Below we share a high-level overview of how the UMA dispute process works.
Smart Contract Flow Diagram

- Raise Dispute - The first step to initiate a dispute against an IP Asset is to call the
raiseDispute
function on DisputeModule.sol. This function will in turn callassertTruth
on UMA'sOptimisticOracleV3.sol
. To initiate a dispute the dispute initiator will need to post a bond of at least the minimum bond defined by UMA for the selected currency. Note that this bond will be lost if the dispute is deemed not verifiably correct by the oracle. - (Optional) Dispute Assertion / Counter Dispute - After the
raiseDispute
call there is a period of time called liveness in which a counter dispute can be submitted. The liveness period is split in two parts: (i) the first part of the liveness period in which only the IP owner can counter dispute and (ii) a second part in which any address can counter dispute - which can be done by callingdisputeAssertion
onArbitrationPolicyUMA.sol
. To counter a dispute the caller will need to post a bond of the same amount and currency that was used by the dispute initiator when raising a dispute. Note that this bond will be lost if the original dispute is deemed to be verifiably correct by the oracle. - Settle Assertion
- If nobody submitted a counter dispute then when the liveness period is over, any address can call
settleAssertion
on UMA'sOptimisticOracleV3.sol
. - If somebody has submitted a counter dispute before the liveness period is over, then the dispute is escalated to UMA decision makers who will judge and make a decision on whether the IP is infringing or not. After the decision has been made, then any address can call
settleAssertion
on UMA'sOptimisticOracleV3.sol
.
- If nobody submitted a counter dispute then when the liveness period is over, any address can call
Dispute Evidence Submission Guidelines
When raising a dispute or making a counter dispute, both parties can submit dispute evidence. Dispute evidence refers to a text document that oracle participants will use & read from to make a judgement on the dispute.
Burden of Proof
In all disputes with UMA arbitration policy, the burden of proof lies with the party creating the dispute. This means that the disputer must provide clear, compelling, and verifiable evidence to prove the dispute beyond reasonable doubt. Disputes that do not meet this high bar can be counter-disputed with the disputing party losing their bond.
Document Characteristics
Experimental
As the process is still experimental, we can expect iteration and fine-tuning on the contents/formats of how the evidence should be submitted.
Every document should have the following characteristics:
-
It should be a text document. Can have images or video if necessary.
-
It should be uploaded on IPFS.
-
It should not take the reviewer more than 1 hour to review the dispute evidence document - the reviewer's time is limited and the evidence could be deemed invalid if it would take too much time to review. Best efforts will be applied to solve a dispute but please keep it concise to have your dispute evidence be valid.
Depending on what the type of the Dispute Tag is, you also need to include in the evidence the "Dispute Evidence Contents of the table below:
Dispute Tag | Dispute Evidence Contents | Dispute review process (Human reviewer instructions) |
---|---|---|
| A. Showcase or pointer to the pre-existing IP that is being infringed upon by the disputed IP B. Proof of public display of the pre-existing IP at an earlier date than the infringing IP (onchain or offchain) and/or instructions on where/how to check it |
|
Examples (non-exhaustive): | A. PIL term that has been violated B. Description of the violation C. Proof of the violation |
|
| A. Description of each payment the disputed IP received that should have been shared with its royalty vault and/or its ancestors but it were not B. Proof of those payments that were not properly shared as royalties |
|
No-Hate, | A. The content standard point that has been violated B. Description of the violation C. Proof of violation |
|
Updated 5 days ago