New blog post co-authored by Horst Eidenmüller examines blockchain-based dispute-resolution mechanisms

A new blog post “Guessing Is Not Judging: Why Crowdsourced Blockchain Decisions Are Not Arbitral Awards” on the Oxford Business Law Blog by Professor Horst Eidenmüller and DPhil Candidate Anna-Sophie Hochgürtel examines blockchain-based dispute-resolution mechanisms such as Kleros and the voting system used by Polymarket through Universal Market Access (UMA).

These systems have acquired considerable practical importance as prediction markets have grown rapidly in recent years. Polymarket, in particular, is increasingly used for contracts relating to major geopolitical developments and sporting events. Current examples include contracts linked to the conflict involving Iran and to the football World Cup.

The post argues that these systems differ fundamentally from arbitration because they incentivize participants to predict the majority view rather than to determine the most justified answer through independent judgment, deliberation, and reasoned decision-making. The question is of broader relevance to debates about digital governance, online dispute resolution, blockchain technology, and the future of adjudication.