Kleros responds to Oxford critique over Schelling-point jurors

The Oxford Business Law Blog published "Guessing Is Not Judging" by Horst Eidenmüller and Anna-Sophie Hochgürtel, arguing that Kleros's Schelling-point mechanism incentivizes jurors to predict what the majority will decide rather than independently judge cases — so its decisions don't qualify as arbitral awards.

Kleros's official account shared a reply by Federico Ast, William George and Facundo Trotz making two counterpoints:

• Judging and predicting were never cleanly separate — courts also decide under uncertainty, with incomplete evidence and probabilistic standards of proof.
• The shared focal point in Kleros need not be a guessed outcome; it can be a shared strategy of honestly applying the rules and evidence and expecting other jurors to do the same.

Kleros pointed readers to the full reply on the Oxford Business Law Blog.