[Feature] Design stake-weighted resolver voting (v2 resolution mechanism)

[collinsezedike]

Summary

The project's original vision (see the "why" section of README.md and the escalation-tiers reasoning behind the current admin-controlled committee) calls for a v2 resolution mechanism: a stake-weighted vote scoped to bond posters, where only addresses that already have a bond in flight on a specific dispute get to vote on it, rather than a fixed, admin-controlled committee.

Scope

Design task, deliberately scoped as design-only for now given the size of the change. Propose how voting weight would be determined, how it interacts with (or replaces) the current Assertion.resolvers snapshot mechanism, and what a migration path from v1's committee model would look like for existing deployments.

Proposed approach

This is the largest and most architecturally significant open item in the project. Expect this to take multiple rounds of discussion before any implementation issue gets opened against it.

[Okorie2000-code]

Hi Maintainer,

I'd like to work on this issue. I have experience with blockchain architecture, smart contracts, and designing decentralized governance mechanisms, and I can submit a clean PR within 48 hours.

[gloskull]

Hi, I’d love to work on this issue. I have 4 years of experience across backend, frontend, full-stack, and smart contract development. I understand the task clearly and can deliver a clean, efficient, well-tested solution on time, with strong focus on code quality and maintainability. My PR will be submitted in 12hours

[Neziahtech]

Hello Maintainer, I would love to solve this issue

[young-wallace]

Hi, I'd like to work on this issue. I've gone through the description and acceptance criteria and I'm confident I can deliver it. I'll make sure every acceptance criterion is met and submit a clean, tested PR. Please assign it to me.

[Babigdk]

Proposal

I’d like to take ownership of the design for the stake-weighted dispute resolution system. I'll produce a comprehensive design proposal that defines voter eligibility (bond posters with active stakes on a dispute), stake-based voting weight calculation, quorum and tie-breaking rules, integration or replacement strategy for the current Assertion.resolvers snapshot, and security considerations such as Sybil resistance, vote finality, and manipulation risks. The proposal will also include a phased migration plan from the existing admin-controlled committee to the decentralized model, ensuring backward compatibility for existing deployments while minimizing operational risk. The design will be documented with architecture diagrams, state transition flows, and clearly outlined trade-offs to facilitate community review before implementation.

[LuisD-Dev]

Hi, I’d like to work on this design issue.

I understand that this is a design-only task focused on proposing a v2 dispute resolution mechanism based on stake-weighted voting by bond posters, rather than the current admin-controlled committee model.

My proposal would cover:

• Eligibility rules for addresses with an active bond on a specific dispute.
• Different options for calculating voting weight and preventing disproportionate influence.
• How the new mechanism would interact with or replace the current Assertion.resolvers snapshot.
• Security considerations, including Sybil resistance, vote timing, bond transfers, and duplicate participation.
• A backward-compatible migration path for existing v1 deployments.
• Trade-offs between the proposed alternatives and a recommended design.

I’m also comfortable incorporating feedback through multiple design iterations before any implementation work begins.

Could you please assign this issue to me?

Thank you!

[grantfox-oss]

🦊 GrantFox — @LuisD-Dev has been assigned to this issue as part of the Official Campaign | FWC26 campaign!

Next steps:

1. Open a Pull Request referencing this issue (e.g., Closes #19)
2. Your PR will be reviewed by the drydocs maintainers

Good luck! Track your progress on GrantFox.