Alex Gluchowski, the co-founder and CEO of Matter Labs, has put forward a concept for an Ethereum court system designed in the fashion of a hierarchical court structure similar to the real world.
In a post made on September 2 on X (formerly Twitter), Gluchowski introduced the idea of an “Ethereum Supreme Court,” functioning much like the United States Supreme Court. This hypothetical court would serve as the ultimate authority for resolving disputes related to smart contracts, eliminating the need for parties involved to resort to traditional legal processes or courts.
Gluchowski emphasized that the primary role of such a system would be to safeguard protocols against external political influence. It would function as a powerful deterrent and elevate Ethereum’s status as a robust network entity.
According to Gluchowski’s proposal, disputes and urgent updates would be managed through a hierarchical framework of on-chain courts. The ultimate authority, however, would be an Ethereum layer-1 soft fork known as the “Court of Final Appeal.”
In this envisioned system, every protocol would establish its own governance structure with standard and emergency upgrade mechanisms. Additionally, each protocol would designate a specific contract capable of initiating an appeal process.
When an emergency upgrade is proposed for a protocol, an appeal period would be established. During this period, any user could raise a challenge to the higher court, but they would be required to provide a predetermined bail deposit.
Gluchowski explained that each court would specify the higher court to which appeals could be made, with the Ethereum Supreme Court serving as the ultimate destination for challengers.
In the proposed court hierarchy, protocols like Aave and Uniswap would address their issues within a designated court, such as CourtUnchained or JusticeDAO. Following the decisions reached by these courts, a party would retain the option to escalate their case to the Ethereum Supreme Court.
Nevertheless, Gluchowski recognized that for the on-chain court system to be effective, a robust social consensus would be essential.
He also noted that the system would entail significant costs, ensuring that only “exceptional and truly extraordinary” cases would be brought before it.
Gluchowski pointed out that while there are existing solutions for handling such disputes, they are often ineffective.
For instance, implementing time-locked features on smart contracts may not be suitable for emergency situations. Meanwhile, introducing a security council could help mitigate the problem but would not provide a complete solution and would carry its own set of risks.
“A security council could only temporarily freeze the contract, requiring token governance approval for an emergency upgrade. However, this approach could potentially open the door to a malicious majority of undercollateralized stakers executing a hostile takeover upgrade and absconding with all the assets,” he explained.
Gluchowski further expressed his willingness, along with the zkSync team—a Matter Labs creation and an Ethereum layer 2 scaling solution—to provide funding for research into this proposal.