How does voting on slashes work?

Voting on slashing disputes uses a Schelling point mechanism — a system that aligns voter incentives with truthful reporting. When you vote on a slash, you're staking XP on your position, and the outcome depends on what the community collectively concludes.

When you vote on a slash, you stake XP on your position (for or against). After voting closes, the winning side splits the losing side's stakes proportionally.

This means you're incentivized to vote with the expected majority — and since most rational voters will assess evidence honestly, the mechanism tends toward truthful outcomes. It's not voting on what should be true, but coordinating on what the community will conclude. The distinction matters: voters who consistently assess evidence accurately accumulate XP from less accurate voters over time.

The proportional split rewards larger stakes on the winning side. A voter confident enough to stake heavily earns more than a voter who hedges with a small stake. This rewards conviction when that conviction proves correct, while penalizing overconfidence when wrong.

Over time, this system identifies and rewards users who consistently assess disputes accurately, creating a reputation layer for judgment quality distinct from general credibility scores.

Slash outcomes are determined by weighted voter consensus, where votes are weighted by participants' credibility scores. This means that more reputable community members have proportionally greater influence on dispute resolution.

If a slash is cancelled or deemed inconclusive, all voters receive their stakes back. This protects against situations where the "correct" answer is genuinely unclear — voters are not penalized for participating in ambiguous disputes.

This refund is crucial for encouraging participation in edge cases. Without it, rational voters would avoid disputes where the outcome seems uncertain, even if their participation would help resolve important questions. The refund ensures that voters are only penalized for being wrong when there is a clearly identifiable correct answer — not for engaging with genuinely difficult questions.

A slash may be deemed inconclusive if evidence is insufficient, if the claim was malformed, or if community consensus fails to emerge within reasonable bounds.