The first thing I would use it for is to fund open-source software, namely contributing to adding features to existing wallets.
Essentially, I propose a feature, people who want to see that feature implemented commit funds to some multi-sig, I hire developers to do the work, the work gets completed, everyone is happy, the funds are released cooperatively, and you didn't do anything. However, if the work doesn't get done, people are not happy and ask for their money back, you get hired, you find out that the developer can't show a working product, then you return the funds to the original contributors.
If I'd act as an escrow, I wouldn't want to be in a situation where my judgement relies on anything else than hard facts. I can imagine a situation in which the developer says the product works, but I can't reproduce it because of different settings on my system. It wouldn't be the first time I can't get certain software to work, despite following guidelines.
If I come to the wrong conclusion, my "Switzerland" image gets tainted.
A ruling would be something like:
- The work has been fully completed and the funds should be released in full; or
- The work has been partially and the [such] percentage of the funds should be released; or
- The work has not been done and the funds should be returned; or
- Any other statement as for why it is not possible to make one of the rulings above.
Even with partial work done, it would be good to know the conditions for payment up-front. I can imagine a partial product is no use for the contributors, so they may not want to pay anything for that.