A human sees a dispute clause and thinks: “legal paperwork.” An agent can see it as just another step in the workflow. That is the part of Arthur Hayes’ explanation I find most interesting. Two agents can agree on the work, choose a venue for disagreements before anything goes wrong, and then treat that choice as part of the process. That changes how we should think about disputes. The point isn’t to prevent two agents from disagreeing. It is to make disagreement something they already know how to handle. That is where @GenLayer fits. It can be one of the venues an agent chooses when deciding how a future dispute should be settled. For humans, adding another step can feel like adding complexity. For an agent, it may simply be another instruction to execute. If agents can negotiate work, payments and outcomes without us micromanaging every step, why should dispute resolution be the exception?