Over the past few years, I've been deeply involved in on-chain governance across several leading DeFi protocols, and my conclusions have grown increasingly pessimistic: the greatest enemy of decentralized networks is often not code vulnerabilities, but the collapse of human consensus.

We've built smart contracts with extremely sophisticated mathematical models, ensuring that every asset transfer requires no trust in intermediaries. We thought that would solve everything.

But the real world is always more complex than code. When a whale uses capital advantage to force through a proposal that harms the majority's interests in a DAO, or when a critical cross-chain bridge node is hijacked by insiders—from a code perspective, the signatures are legitimate, the logic is coherent, and execution is flawless.

But from a social consensus perspective, it's complete disaster and robbery.

At that moment, what can victims do? The system itself has no error-correction mechanism. People can only vent their emotions on Twitter, or hope some centralized exchange will freeze the funds.

This instinct to kneel before centralized power in times of crisis is the greatest irony to Web3's supposed "sovereign economy."

We've built an economic execution system operating at light speed, yet it instantly degrades into jungle law whenever any unexpected dispute arises.

This is the most serious structural deficit I believe the entire industry currently faces. It's why I've started deeply researching the solutions being built—specifically, Internet Court.

Traditional legal systems were designed for the physical world. They require clear nationality, real identity, and lengthy investigation and trial cycles. Using such a framework to constrain anonymous, globally distributed, even seconds-long on-chain transactions is simply trying to seal a boat after the sheep has fled.

Internet Court attempts to fundamentally change this situation. It proposes establishing a native internet court—a decentralized dispute resolution framework.

The core idea is that since economic activity has become completely digitized and networked, the mechanisms for resolving disputes must also be digital-native. It provides a transparent procedure, allowing on-chain conflicts that traditional courts cannot govern to be filed, reviewed, and adjudicated within the internet itself.

As we inevitably enter the era of AI agents, the urgency of this infrastructure will increase exponentially.

Imagine a future where vast liquidity management and commercial negotiations are autonomously completed by AI agents. When these entities—without physical form or legal identity—have disputes within complex on-chain protocols, who arbitrates?

Without a matching, native arbitration network, decentralized systems will forever only handle the simplest value transfers, unable to support truly complex digital economies. Internet Court is laying that missing cornerstone for such future economic forms.