# Appeals

`kaal:entity:appeals`

**Status.** derived

This node is assembled mechanically from the 4 claims that carry the concept tag `appeals`. It is a roster of what the corpus says under this term. It is **not** an adjudicated definition: no single statement here has been ruled canonical, and no first-appearance call has been made. Read the claims and judge for yourself.

## Every claim under this term

4 claims across 2 works, 2018 to 2021.

**2018**

- [3125822-031](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/3125822-031) [condition/argued] -- Smart contracts give insurance against an unfair settlement only under stated conditions, among them that anonymous arbiters are chosen randomly with weight given by their availability stakes and that arbiters must post evidence of work for evaluation by the forum.
  > Further, smart contracts written as suggested above give insurance an unfair settlement will never occur if 1) anonymous arbiters are randomly chosen according to the weight of their availability stakes, 2) arbiters are required to post evidence-of-work posts for evaluation by the forum
  Craig Calcaterra, Wulf A. Kaal, Vlad Andrei, Blockchain Infrastructure for Measuring Domain Specific Reputation in Autonomous Decentralized and A (2018). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3125822

**2021**

- [3782214-028](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/3782214-028) [design/argued] -- Instability generated by the rigidity of rules is solved by making the rules dynamic, with an appeals process stabilizing short term cooperation at the level of the single contract and legislation handling longer term amendment.
  > The instability generated by the rigidity of the rules is solved by making the rules dynamic. Dynamic governance includes short-term and long-term protocols. An ap- peals process stabilizes short-term cooperation (day to day business, single contract).
  Craig Calcaterra, Wulf A. Kaal, Decentralized Governance (2021). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3782214
- [3782214-031](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/3782214-031) [failure/argued] *(failure mode)* -- Code is law smart contracts deliver a genuine leap in efficiency and clarity through digital self execution, but their supposed self regulation will always ultimately fall short, which is why an appeals capacity is necessary in any business deal.
  > While code-is-law smart con- tracts give a technological leap in efficiency and clarity, with efficient digital self-exe- cution, their supposed self-regulation will always be ultimately lacking.
  Craig Calcaterra, Wulf A. Kaal, Decentralized Governance (2021). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3782214
- [3782214-032](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/3782214-032) [design/argued] -- To preserve the efficiency of a self executing code is law smart contract, the appeals process must be built into the code itself, with triggers either party can engage that freeze the encumbered assets and transfer partial powers of disbursement to a third party arbiter.
  > To maintain the efficiency of the self-executing code-is-law smart contract, the appeals process must be built into the code.
  Craig Calcaterra, Wulf A. Kaal, Decentralized Governance (2021). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3782214

## Verify

Every claim above resolves to a record carrying a verbatim source quote, the sha256 of the source PDF, and a preformatted citation. Nothing here asks to be taken on trust.

    curl -s https://wulfkaal.github.io/entities/appeals.md | sha256sum

**Canonical form.** This markdown file is the canonical hashed representation of this entity node. Its sha256 is the content hash.