What Is Aragon Court (ANJ)? Complete Guide Review About Aragon Court.

What Is Aragon Court (ANJ)?

What Is Aragon Court (ANJ)?

The Aragon Court is an Aragon organization that provides infrastructure and services to users of the Aragon platform, and is governed by ANT holders. The existing Aragon infrastructure enables users to create and manage organizations. Each Aragon organization exists as a set of smart contracts that define the organization’s stakeholders and their associated rights and privileges. However, some rights and privileges require subjective constraints that cannot be encoded in a smart contract directly.

The decentralized oracle protocol developed and maintained by the Aragon Network. The Aragon Court can be used by organizations, including the Aragon Network itself, to resolve subjective disputes with binary outcomes. When combined with the existing Aragon infrastructure, it enables an organization to create Proposal Agreements that define subjective constraints on an organization’s operation and can be enforced by minority stakeholders.

Aragon Court Storage Key Points

Coin BasicInformation
Coin NameAragon Court
Short NameANJ
Circulating Supply128,645,461.39 ANJ
Total Supply128,645,461
Source CodeClick Here To View Source Code
ExplorersClick Here To View Explorers
Twitter PageClick Here To Visit Twitter Group
WhitepaperClick Here To View
Official Project WebsiteClick Here To Visit Project Website

Aragon’s Permission Architecture

Aragon organizations control which addresses have access to perform actions on behalf of the organization in a permission registry called the Access Control List. Addresses on the registry can be externally owned accounts or contracts. Some contracts are intended to forward actions based on pre-defined criteria, for example, a voting app will forward action after a successful approval vote.

By chaining multiple contracts together Aragon Court can define complex criteria which constrain how actions can be performed within the organization. To illustrate this we can look at a common scenario where an organization wants to allow treasury funds to be transferred, but only if they are 1) proposed by a member of the organization, 2) approved by a majority of members, and 3) within a pre-determined budget. This can be accomplished by configuring a chain of permissions with each link imposing logical constraints on the final action.

Voting application

The Vault, which stores the organization’s assets, grants the transfer role only to the Finance application, which internally implements budgeting logic. The Finance application’s Create Payments role is assigned exclusively to the Voting application so that the only way to create payments is to successfully pass a vote. The Voting application’s Create Votes role is granted exclusively to the Token Manager of the organization’s native token. The Token Manager will forward actions from token holders of the Token Manager’s associated token.

Aragon Court This process effectively constrains how funds can be transferred in the organization, but the approval of a given transfer is ultimately authorized by majority vote. It’s not unreasonable for a minority stakeholder to be concerned that a majority of stakeholders might decide to liquidate the organization and exclude minority stakeholders in the process. To avoid a hostile liquidation scenario like this an organization needs a mechanism to impose a constraint that can be enforced by the actions of any individual within the organization rather than a majority of participants.

Proposal Agreements

Proposal Agreements are designed to facilitate these types of constraints within Aragon organizations. They enable an organization to define human-readable terms that proposals must conform to and require proposers to deposit collateral before their proposal can be forwarded to a voting app. The human-readable terms can be used to protect the interest of minority stakeholders as described in the previous section, but they can also be used to define basic quality standards for what supplemental information must be included with a proposal.

Dispute Creation

Aragon Court If a minority stakeholder feels that a submitted proposal has violated the proposal agreement terms then they can choose to raise a dispute. When they raise a dispute they will need to deposit an equivalent amount of collateral, along with initial dispute fees as determined by the Court. They can also provide evidence to support their position. The vote will be immediately paused until the dispute is resolved.

If the original proposer feels that the dispute is valid then they can opt to do nothing and the dispute will be automatically ruled in favor of the disputer. The proposer’s collateral will be transferred to the disputer and the vote will be canceled. If the original proposer believes they will win the dispute then they must also deposit dispute fees and provide evidence to support their position.