So you're saying that jury members would have no conflict whatsoever as stakeholders in a cryptocurrency with the subject matter of what would be negotiated?
I am building up a case in my mind, to follow my thoughts on this...
Let's say you were prosecuting a case in some country where some stranger to the jury was accused of spamming. The company making the accusation would be some local social media platform in Germany, for example a forum for computer games. None of the jury members would have a monetary stake in this company because the company offers no possibility of monetary participation. None of them know the senior operators of this company and have never come into contact, either directly or indirectly.
What would be negotiated would be the accusation of inadmissible spamming on the sites accessible to the public.
What is the likelihood that the individuals on the jury would be guided by a financial interest, because it is said that the operation of the platform suffers financial and reputational damage as a result of spamming? The probability would not be given. The defendant would not have this specific financial motivation either.
The jury would be asked by the accuser to take the interest of the company into account, of course. The defendend would argue that the spamming accusation is not correct, because .... and so on and so forth.
If you now take Hive as that social media platform, where every opened account requires at least some stake, and where participation and engagement with other users is highly dependent on building up stake in order to become more visible, and in order to make ones own votes more attractive, and where the financial stability of the currency is linked to its success, and where participants use downvotes in order to counteract what they think is "damaging" the platform, but nowhere it is defined and can be looked up as a central rule what exactly is to be understood by "damage", that those jury members can come in no conflict with what they think about the matter of spam, the matter of the reward pool, the matter of downvotes themselves?
I would define that as a probability to come into conflict between my interest as a hive user and the interest of another hive user, would you not?