You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Currently, the dispute Scanner is using the vote options:
0 = Refuse
1 = Yes
2 = No
But the metadata of each dispute should be used. Since this information it's in the arbitrable smarc contract instead of in the arbitrator (what Klerosboard reads), this could be achiveable using the next strategy:
Each Dispute has the information of the disputeID and the Arbitrable
With that info, we can look for the Dispute event that the arbitrable should emit for that dispute. Then, in that event we have metaEvidenceID. With that ID, we can search for the MetaEvidence event with the URL of the metaevidence (json file).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Currently, the dispute Scanner is using the vote options:
0 = Refuse
1 = Yes
2 = No
But the metadata of each dispute should be used. Since this information it's in the arbitrable smarc contract instead of in the arbitrator (what Klerosboard reads), this could be achiveable using the next strategy:
Each Dispute has the information of the disputeID and the Arbitrable
With that info, we can look for the Dispute event that the arbitrable should emit for that dispute. Then, in that event we have metaEvidenceID. With that ID, we can search for the MetaEvidence event with the URL of the metaevidence (json file).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: