A recent question raised in the community asked why most arbitration outcomes tend to fall into two buckets:
- a “win” for the fisherman, typically when the indexer is unresponsive or at fault, or
- a “draw,” where the indexer adequately disproves the claim.
The question also expressed concern that this pattern may unintentionally encourage low-effort or speculative disputes—describing it as a potential “numbers game” where fishermen file without meaningful risk or downside. The suggestion was that, in cases lacking clear evidence or merit, the fisherman’s deposit should be slashed to discourage frivolous claims.
Given this, we want to offer additional context and clarify the Arbitration Council’s stance on how rulings are made and why these patterns exist.
The Role of the Dispute Process
The dispute resolution process in The Graph is designed as a check against bad behavior, with the goal of protecting data consumers and maintaining trust in the protocol. It relies on a balance between indexer accountability and the integrity of those who file disputes—known as fishermen.
The core expectation is that indexers must respond to disputes and, when challenged, provide sufficient proof that their actions were correct. Meanwhile, fishermen are expected to act in good faith, presenting legitimate concerns based on observable anomalies (e.g., POI mismatches or subgraph sync inconsistencies).
Why We See Mostly “Wins” or “Draws”
It’s true that most recent rulings fall into two categories:
- Win for the fisherman – typically when an indexer is unresponsive or demonstrably at fault (e.g., invalid POIs)
- Draw – when an indexer adequately rebuts the claim and no clear fault can be established
But we very rarely see Option 3: slashing the fisherman (i.e., loss of their deposit).
Why We Rarely Slash Fishermen
Slashing a fisherman isn’t just punitive—it discourages participation. We believe current active fishermen are operating altruistically, often investing significant time, capital, and technical effort to surface potential issues:
- Many run their own tools or data pipelines to scan for POI inconsistencies
- They lock up capital (GRT) for extended periods—often weeks or months—without guaranteed return
- Most spend hours investigating, writing up cases, and responding to counterarguments
- The median reward from a successful dispute is around ~4.6K GRT, and that excludes their opportunity cost and tooling overhead
This is hardly a “numbers game” or something done lightly. In fact, we currently view most fishermen as net contributors to protocol health.
That said, if clear evidence of malicious or reckless dispute filing emerged, the Council would not hesitate to rule against a fisherman. But to date, we’ve seen nothing that meets that threshold. Many of the “draw” cases do still require effort from both sides, and we take that seriously.
Why the “Draw” is Still Valuable
Even if a dispute ends in a draw, it still serves an important purpose:
- It puts pressure on indexers to remain responsive and provide proof of correctness
- It signals that someone is watching, creating an environment of accountability
- It surfaces ambiguous or edge-case behavior that may inform future protocol improvements
Ultimately, the dispute process doesn’t need to slash someone on both sides to be effective. Just like in legal systems, a dismissed or unresolved case can still shape behavior.
On Enforcement and Incentives
We agree that slashing should remain a real possibility—especially for negligent or malicious indexers. Without that, the threat of consequences is hollow. But the same is true on the other side: if we start slashing honest fishermen acting in good faith, we risk losing one of the only lines of defense the protocol has.
As for rewards, some have suggested increasing the percentage split in favor of fishermen to account for the high cost of participation. While that may be worth discussing in the future, our current focus is on preserving credibility and fairness in dispute resolution.
Closing Thoughts
We welcome ongoing discussion and encourage more community members to observe and engage with open disputes. Transparency is a cornerstone of The Graph, and your scrutiny helps strengthen its foundations.
Thank you to all the fishermen, indexers, and observers who continue to participate thoughtfully in this process.
— The Arbitration Council