In tandem with the RWSC®, positions and placement of trust between collaborators have been conceptually decentralized


These further being concurrent with legally binding, privately held, lingua franca collaborative engagement documentation. In respect to blockchain-assisted engagement formation, some proposals coming to market involve dispute ‘panels’ [179]

This strategy unnecessarily compounds disparate legal histories with conflicting jurisdictional impediments remaining marginally addressed [180]

Rather than centralized institutions recreating systems on decentralized networks, individual use of decentralized networks inherently transpires within geographically specific jurisdictions and may thereby subsequently use centralized systems ad hoc. An underlying Biosphere ethos speaks to the enactment of self-organizing, autonomous collaborations defined and executed by participants

The Biosphere playing field is fundamentally leveled with suppositional ceilings of financial exposure self-prescribed. When paralleled to a private individual’s claims pursuance against a multi-national corporation, considerations of achievable restitution must initially be held as arising from entirely unalike starting points

In the event contracted collaborative situations are deemed by participants as independently irresolvable, the Tribunal may be requested to rule on the outcome of any active RWSC®. The Tribunal’s role is strictly as a 3rd party. All member-requested Tribunal judgements are final, the specifications of which are precisely detailed within the User Agreement. Courses of action in Disputes, as they pertain to our involvement, are differentiated as;

non-completion or settlement

whereby a collaboration has not been fulfilled or honored due to the actions of either participant

Biosphere protects providers so as to settle claims of evidenced violation up to the declared value and or from provider’s terms. This is including say remuneration for late cancellations, amongst others

Conversely, in the case of evidenced engagement violation by a provider, the purchasing member [client] is financially safeguarded and does not need to settle for completion. In such cases the only cost to a purchasing member is the preceding, nominal RWSC® + The Other Blockchain® registration itself


material breach or disparity

wherein variation between contractually described requirements of completion are evidenced to significantly differ from those as received

Biosphere resolution may pertain to evidence based rulings in accordance with desired outcomes as contractually-defined. Tribunal resolutions are only within the RWSC® parameters including specifications of potential remuneration, which have already been fully authorized by the purchasing member throughout engagement

Outside of Biosphere, either collaborating member may pursue claims using substantial, blockchain verified evidence found with their collaboration documentation


Members registering a Dispute must state their preferred outcome in so far as the corrective action(s) wished to be implemented. The processing timeline involves a liaison’s dual party notification as to a Dispute's registration

Then a review of collaboration documentation including the nature of complaint as well as requests for clarification with submitted photographic and or written evidence are required for Tribunal ruling

Fundamentally, the guiding Tribunal ruling parameters are succinctly set within the formalized terms of pertinent collaborative engagement documentation

The goal or intent of Tribunal rulings is specified as being in direct accordance with successful completion, or the closest possible approximation of collaborative activity, as may be specifically defined therein


Financial exposure is limited to registered valuations. Outside Biosphere and absent TOF®’s involvement, agreements may only be used by the registered collaborating participants as they individually deem appropriate

making it personal


short notice alternates