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

We constructed smart contracts with extremely precise mathematical models to ensure that every asset transfer requires no trust intermediaries. We thought we had solved everything.

But the real world is always more complex than code. When a whale leverages financial advantages to forcibly pass a proposal in a DAO that harms the majority's interests; 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 the execution is flawless.

But from the perspective of social consensus, this is a complete disaster and robbery.

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

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

We built an economic execution system that operates at light speed, yet it immediately degenerates into jungle law the moment it faces any unforeseen dispute.

This is what I believe is the most serious structural deficiency the entire industry currently faces. And it's why I started deeply researching the solutions being built.

Traditional legal systems were designed for the physical world. They require you to have clear nationality, real identity, and lengthy evidence collection and trial cycles. Using such a system to constrain anonymous, globally distributed, and sometimes ephemeral on-chain transactions is like trying to catch a moving boat by marking the gunwale.

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

Its core philosophy is: since economic activity has become completely digitalized and networked, the mechanisms for resolving disputes must also be digitally native. It provides a transparent procedure that allows on-chain conflicts that traditional courts cannot adjudicate to be raised, reviewed, and decided within the internet itself.

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

Imagine a future where vast amounts of liquidity management and business negotiations are completed autonomously by AI agents. When these entities without physical form or legal identity produce disagreements in complex on-chain protocols, who will arbitrate?

Without a matching, native arbitration network, decentralized systems will forever only be able to handle the simplest value transfers and cannot support truly complex digital economies. Internet Court is laying that missing cornerstone for this future economic form.