top of page

Smart Contracts, Kleros, and New Arbitration Platforms: What Already Works and Where Practice is Heading

  • Writer: arbitrationblog
    arbitrationblog
  • Sep 9
  • 6 min read
ree

Executive Summary


This article explores how smart contracts reshape arbitration and alternative dispute resolution (ADR), offering both opportunities and challenges in the digital economy. It presents an in‑depth review of decentralized platforms such as Kleros, Reality.eth, UMA Optimistic Oracle, Boson Protocol, Mattereum, Aragon Court, and Jur. Real cases, including the recognition of Kleros in a Mexican court, are highlighted to show the bridge between blockchain justice and national legal systems.


The article also outlines how traditional institutions like JAMS, SIAC, and the UKJT are adapting their rules, while regulators address issues of DAO liability, DeFi developers, and sanctions. Practical guidelines for drafting digital arbitration clauses conclude the discussion.

The central thesis is clear: arbitration keeps its global strengths — flexibility, confidentiality, and enforceability — but must be fine‑tuned to code and blockchain data.


Introduction: Digital Transactions Require Digital Justice

Smart contracts have evolved from an experimental curiosity into a practical tool for automating contractual relationships[1]. By encoding terms into blockchain, they allow agreements to self‑execute without human intervention (John Marshall Law Review)[2]. Yet as transactions grow in number and complexity, disputes emerge — coding flaws, unreliable oracles, cyberattacks, or disagreements over whether parties met their obligations in spirit and form. Arbitration and ADR are therefore adapting to meet this digital reality, moving toward on‑chain solutions and new sets of rules issued by established institutions.


This article provides a structured overview of recent developments. It examines Kleros[3] as a leading decentralized court (Kleros Blog), the Reality.eth + Kleros[4] model for fact‑finding (Reality.eth Docs), UMA Optimistic Oracle for “optimistic truth”[5], e‑commerce models such as Boson Protocol[6] and Mattereum[7] that tie physical goods to blockchain (Boson Docs), and historical experiments like Aragon Court and Jur (Aragon GitHub)[8]. It also reviews how JAMS, SIAC, and regulators are building bridges between traditional law and digital disputes (SIAC Rules 2025)[9].


Arbitration in the digital age still offers what businesses need most — neutrality, confidentiality, and enforceability — but it must be carefully aligned with code, oracles, and blockchain realities (ARIA Columbia).


Legal Framework: From “Code as Law” to “Law Understanding Code”


Smart contracts are not always legal contracts; they are often mechanisms of execution attached to traditional text agreements (ARIA Columbia)[10]. For arbitration, this duality means identifying applicable law, seat of arbitration, and competent tribunal, while ensuring arbitrators can examine on‑chain logs and enforce awards technically (LawtechUK[11]).


The UKJT Digital Dispute Resolution Rules[12] set a precedent by allowing fast proceedings, automatic execution, and oracle‑based trust (LawtechUK). Institutions are following: JAMS adopted smart contract and AI rules in 2024 (JAMS Rules)[13], and SIAC released its 2025 rules with tools for multiparty coordination and expedited cases (SIAC Rules 2025).


Case law is also catching up. Courts debate DAO liability, with token holders sometimes treated as partners in unincorporated associations[14].


U.S. courts examine whether smart contract code can be property for sanctions purposes[15]. And the DOJ clarified that DeFi developers will not be prosecuted for creating protocols absent criminal intent.


Kleros: Decentralized Arbitration with Real‑World Recognition

Kleros operates as a decentralized arbitration court where jurors stake PNK tokens, are randomly selected, and resolve disputes via commit–reveal voting. This design encourages convergence toward truthful outcomes while deterring collusion. Since 2018, Kleros has processed thousands of disputes across NFT cases, marketplace disagreements, and escrow transactions.


In 2021, a Mexican court recognized an arbitral award that incorporated Kleros, marking the first time a national judiciary validated blockchain arbitration[16].


In 2024–2025, Kleros expanded with its Atlas architecture, improved UX for jurors, and integrated more closely with oracles like Reality.eth.


Reality.eth + Kleros: A Seamless Escalation Path

Reality.eth lets decentralized apps ask factual questions, and if the answer is challenged, disputes escalate automatically to Kleros. This mechanism combines speed, transparency, and economic incentives, making it ideal for prediction markets, NFT authenticity checks, and escrowed trades. It demonstrates how arbitration can become a background service embedded directly into Web3 logic.


UMA Optimistic Oracle: Truth Unless Contested


The UMA Optimistic Oracle assumes data is correct unless challenged. When contested, the Data Verification Mechanism engages token‑based voting to resolve disputes.


In 2025, UMA added “managed proposers” to streamline processes, supported by OpenZeppelin audits for security[17]. This system works best for financial markets, parametric insurance, and large‑scale DeFi applications where most data is uncontested.


Boson Protocol and Mattereum: Linking Blockchain to Real Goods


Boson Protocol uses redeemable NFTs for physical goods, combining escrow and arbitration within the same smart contract[18].


Mattereum relies on Ricardian contracts that blend legal text, smart code, and arbitration clauses, creating enforceable bridges between blockchain and real assets[19].


Together, these models demonstrate how e‑commerce can securely connect digital execution with offline delivery.


Aragon Court and Jur: Early Experiments and Lessons Learned


Aragon Court once offered a decentralized justice system, but in 2024 the project sunset several legacy products, leaving the code available as open source[20].


Jur sought to build Web3 courts but has shifted into limited activity, leaving its ideas embedded in newer protocols.


These platforms remain important reference points in the evolution of decentralized arbitration.


Drafting Digital Arbitration Clauses

Digital arbitration clauses must clearly designate an institution and governing law, reference specific smart contract addresses, and provide escalation pathways via oracles and arbitration proxies. Confidentiality should be preserved through hashing or zero‑knowledge proofs.


Sample clause:

“All disputes… shall be referred to arbitration under [institution/rules]. Seat: [city]. Governing law: [law]. Factual disputes shall first be validated by [smart contract address], escalated to Reality.eth if contested, and finally referred to Kleros Court through an arbitration proxy. Parties undertake to perform all necessary on‑chain actions to enforce the final award.” (Reality.eth Docs)

 

Risks and Limitations

Confidentiality is challenged by blockchain transparency, requiring privacy layers. DAO pseudonymity complicates enforceability, so legal wrappers are essential. On‑chain awards still need recognition under the New York Convention.


Finally, oracles and juror pools carry risks of manipulation and spam.


Conclusion

The rise of smart contracts and decentralized justice platforms has shown that arbitration can remain relevant in a world where agreements increasingly live on-chain. Instead of replacing traditional institutions, these mechanisms extend arbitration’s reach, embedding it into the logic of digital transactions while preserving its role as a neutral and enforceable system of dispute resolution.


What emerges is not a single model but a spectrum: fully decentralized courts for rapid, low-value disputes; hybrid pathways that blend oracle findings with enforceable arbitral awards; and established institutions that continue to adapt their rules for complex, high-stakes cases. This layered ecosystem reflects arbitration’s enduring strength — its ability to evolve with commerce while keeping trust at its core.


The next stage will depend on how effectively law and code learn to speak the same language. Courts, regulators, and arbitral bodies are already laying the foundations, but lasting success will require harmonization across jurisdictions and technologies. If achieved, arbitration will not only accompany the digital economy — it will become one of its essential guarantees of fairness and stability.


­­­­­About the Author:

Begaim Kaibyldaeva is an international arbitrator with extensive experience in resolving complex cross-border disputes across Central Asia and beyond. Since 2018, she has served as an arbitrator at leading arbitral institutions.


In addition to her arbitration practice, Begaim is the CEO and founder of Business Soft (Kyrgyzstan) and ICLOUD (Uzbekistan), pioneering the integration of LegalTech and artificial intelligence into dispute resolution and business transformation.


She is a resident of the Central Asian Association for Artificial Intelligence and IT-PARK Uzbekistan, contributing actively to regional innovation ecosystems.


A frequent speaker and author, Begaim regularly contributes to international publications and conferences. Her thought leadership focuses on bridging innovation and tradition in arbitration, with particular emphasis on the role of AI and digital technologies in shaping the future of ADR.


Her mission is to strengthen international arbitration as a trusted mechanism for global business while championing innovation, efficiency, and cross-border collaboration.


References

 
 
 
bottom of page