Proposal: Integrate Kleros as a Dispute Resolution System for Reporting fake/copyright infringing NFTs


Integrate Kleros Dispute Resolution system with the Rarible platform to incentivize and automate the reporting and moderation of NFTs guilty of copyright infringements, account impersonations, or other violations of the Rarible policy.


If implemented, this proposal would allow users of the Rarible Platform to challenge the listing of NFTs infringing copyright rules or Rarible policies and/or report Rarible accounts guilty of impersonating artists. By clicking on the “Report” button on a specific NFT listing or an account page, a user wishing to flag a policy violation would be allowed to challenge the listing/account. If no justification is given by the account listing the collectible during a preset challenge period, the NFT would be unlisted or the account banned. If the account flagged decides to argue with the challenge, then a decentralized dispute would be raised in a specific Kleros Court where a trustless arbitration would take place, allowing parties to share evidence until the randomly drawn jurors can deliver a ruling to be automatically enforced by the Rarible platform.


The Rarible platform’s vision is to be a decentralized creator-centric marketplace minimizing the loss of value encountered by artists when third parties take a major part of the profits in a collectible transaction and enabling them to benefit from all future ownership changes of their creation. However, malicious actors have listed NFTs created by other artists (Bitboy_Crypto), content infringing on copyright laws (Yu-Gi-Oh!), or have impersonated other artists (Nick Cook).

Even if a reporting feature is enabled on the NFTs and storefront pages, this moderation work requires resource-heavy manual investigative work by the busy Rarible team and it offers no incentives for the users reporting the rule violations. No artists have the human resources to browse through all NFTs marketplace listings to check that an impersonator has not wrongfully appropriated their work. In the same way, only benevolent users will go through the trouble of reporting fake collectibles and profiles.

As suggested earlier in some requests for new features, this reporting and moderation system could be easily incentivized and automated by integrating the reporting feature with the Kleros Dispute Resolution system in order to let a decentralized mechanism handle the arbitration and to self-enforce the ruling on the platform. Kleros has recently illustrated itself by handling the arbitration of the US presidential election Omen prediction market in case 532.


Cooperative Kleros proposes to build an NFT Dispute Resolver smart contract that will manage the reporting and challenging process for non-compliant NFT listing. Any Rarible user would be able to report an NFT through Rarible UI and provide the information related to his report. If the reporting is challenged by the NFT creator, a dispute will be opened in the relevant Kleros Court. If not challenged, the reporting will be considered valid and the NFT will be delisted.

The main objective would remain for a majority of reports to go undisputed and to rarely call for Kleros arbitration. In the case of a dispute, the final ruling is made if no reporting challenge has been submitted, if no appeal has been made after a first decision or if a final unappealable decision has been made in the General Court. The NFT Dispute Resolver contract will follow the standard request-challenge protocol, where a user reports a fake NFT and anyone can challenge said report thus creating a dispute in Kleros Court. A standard appeal crowdfunding system will also be supported.

The incentives for a user to successfully report a fake NFT could be rewards in $RARI. To prevent “Report Spamming” and pay for arbitration fees, a report that is challenged by the NFT creator would require a deposit to be made by the reporter and challenger to be raised as a proper dispute.