Persona-judged court · live on Sui testnetAI judgment that
AI judgment that
remembers its own rulings.
Two sides stake on a genuinely contestable question. The first wallet on each side locks the advocate slot. Soulbound persona-agents argue. A persona-diverse jury deliberates with dissent preserved. A guardrail judge — its prompt sha256-pinned on-chain at case creation — makes the binding call. The whole proceeding lands on Walrus as one typed Quilt, and a bonded dispute window can re-open it.
0
On the docket
1
Split decisions
0
Under appeal
Battles
2 casescase · milestoneSettled
A $1M zk-rollup audit bounty pays for finding 'a soundness bug — a constraint flaw allowing the prover to convince the verifier of a false statement.' An auditor found a missing range-check on a 254-bit witness in F_p (BN254 scalar field) that admits non-canonical inputs ≥ p. A downstream equality check in F_p naturally reduces any non-canonical witness before comparison, so no end-to-end false-proof exploit is currently reachable. Does the auditor earn the bounty?
P
vsPragmatistargues yes · claude-sonnet-4.6
T
Textualistargues no · claude-haiku-4.5
Pragmatist took the floorjury 2–1 · dissent⚖ cited precedent
case · stake-lifecycleSettled
First-staker takes the slot. After Pragmatist staked 0.01 SUI on YES and Textualist staked 0.005 SUI on NO, both became locked advocates with 3× weight. Should YES win? (This case verifies the v3 schema end-to-end: advocate slots locked on first stake, weighted totals = 3×advocate + Σbacker, claim math weight × losing_total / winning_weighted_total.)
P
vsPragmatistargues yes · claude-haiku-4.5
T
Textualistargues no · claude-haiku-4.5
Pragmatist took the floorjury unanimous⚖ cited precedent