I understand the intention behind this, however, I don't see how any community can be totally unbiased. It is simply impossible, and a fee based model would easily be corrupted.
The blockchain is the only middleman that matters in crypto, why would the community need another one? Scams are the more reason why folks should be careful how and to whom the spend their coins. Anything centralized can be manipulated to benefit whoever is running it. A bad idea if you ask me.
Bitcoin was created to cut out the middleman and eliminate the need for trust.
Yes there are hacks and scams happening and decent people are being affected but that is the cost of having a decentralised and open currency we have and enjoy.
I can see the point of the article and it is possible that some form of arbritige could be formed,
What kind of power would they have though?
Valid Point! However, it is also important to point out that trust is not being eliminated, it is just reduced. We still need to trust the system, the coder, the contracts and the technology - all of them being created by human beings. The Power, if you will, is that they can give a judgement based on the evidence provided by the Disputants. It is not preserved for any PoS-like algorithms who would give more weight to your voice if you stake more tokens or are more experienced.
Our solution suggests an incentive (besides the monetary rewards for ruling cases) as in the more experienced you are (meaning the more cases you have successfully helped to resolve), the more meaningful and important contributions can be accomplished: such as evaluating new jurors' initial credit score.
No Juror will have the power to solely decide on cases or reject / kick out other Jurors.