Skip to main content

​
Dispute Resolution

ViewFT’s verification system is designed to be fair, but no system is perfect. The dispute resolution process ensures creators have recourse if they believe a slashing decision was incorrect.

​
Appeal Process

  1. File an appeal — within 7 days of the slashing decision
  2. Provide evidence — submit additional sources, context, or corrections
  3. New Senate panel — a different set of Senators reviews the appeal (original panel excluded)
  4. Community re-vote — if the new Senate panel disagrees with the original decision, a community re-vote is triggered
  5. Final determination — the appeal outcome is final

​
Possible Outcomes

  • Appeal upheld: ViewCred fully restored, staked tokens returned, original flaggers lose ViewCred
  • Appeal denied: Original decision stands, no additional penalty for appealing
  • Partial reversal: Slashing reduced (e.g., from major to minor violation)

​
Safeguards

  • Appeals are free — creators should never be afraid to challenge a decision
  • Different Senate panel prevents groupthink
  • Appeal outcomes are published for transparency
  • Repeated successful appeals against specific Senators affect their eligibility for re-election

​
Typical Timeline

​
Edge Cases

Breaking news with limited sources: For rapidly developing stories where source material is scarce, the verification system applies a “developing story” tag rather than immediate slashing. This gives creators 48 hours to update or correct their reporting as new information emerges. Satire and opinion: Content clearly labeled as satire or opinion is not subject to factual accuracy slashing. However, satire that could reasonably be mistaken for factual reporting (e.g., no clear satire label, realistic formatting) may still be flagged and reviewed. Corrections: Creators who voluntarily correct errors before being flagged earn ViewCred for intellectual honesty rather than losing it. The system rewards self-correction as a sign of credibility.