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 built smart contracts with extremely precise mathematical models to ensure that every asset transfer requires no trusted intermediaries. We thought that would be the end of it.

But the real world is always more complex than code. When a whale exploits financial advantages to force through a proposal in a DAO that damages the majority's interests; or when a critical cross-chain bridge node is hijacked by insiders. From a code perspective, the signatures are valid, the logic is coherent, and the execution is flawless.

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

At such moments, what can victims do? The system itself has no error-correction mechanism. People can only vent on Twitter, or hope that some centralized exchange will 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 when faced with any unexpected dispute, it instantly degenerates into the jungle law of primitive society.

This is what I currently consider the most serious structural deficiency facing the entire industry. It's also why I began deeply researching and building solutions.

Traditional legal systems are designed for the physical world. They require you to have clear nationality, true identity, and lengthy investigation and trial cycles. Using such a system to constrain anonymous, globally distributed, even seconds-old on-chain transactions is simply trying to solve a problem with outdated methods.

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

Its core idea is that since economic activity has become completely digitalized and networked, the mechanism 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 filed, reviewed, and ruled upon within the internet itself.

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

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

Without a matching, native arbitration network, decentralized systems will only ever be able to handle the simplest value transfers, and never support truly complex digital economies. Internet Court is precisely laying that missing foundational stone for this future economic form.