TLaaS (LEX) — Decentralized License Revocation & Dispute Resolution Protocol

1. Purpose

Design a decentralized, tamper-resistant mechanism for license revocation and dispute resolution within TLaaS (LEX). This protocol must integrate with TLAAS (DLA) to enforce compliance decisions and allow DAL to govern revocation criteria, appeals, and reinstatement through transparent, verifiable processes.

2. Design Principles

• On-Chain Finality: All revocation actions are recorded on-chain with immutable references.
• Appeals Process: Disputes resolved via DAO-governed arbitration, leveraging decentralized juror or validator networks.
• Evidence Transparency: All case-related evidence stored in IPFS/Arweave with verifiable hashes.
• Multi-Signature Revocation: Require multi-party signatures (e.g., compliance officer + governance council) for irreversible actions.

3. Revocation Reasons

1. Compliance Violations — Breach of license conditions.
2. Fraud Detection — Evidence of falsified metadata or forged documents.
3. Regulatory Mandates — Orders from recognized authorities.
4. Security Incidents — License key compromise or misuse.

4. Solidity Revocation Contract

// SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT
pragma solidity ^0.8.24;

contract LicenseRevocation {
    enum Status { Active, Suspended, Revoked }
    
    struct RevocationRecord {
        Status status;
        string reason;
        string evidenceCID; // IPFS/Arweave CID for evidence
        uint256 timestamp;
        address initiatedBy;
    }

    mapping(bytes32 => RevocationRecord) public licenseStatus;

    event LicenseRevoked(bytes32 indexed licenseId, string reason, string evidenceCID);
    event LicenseSuspended(bytes32 indexed licenseId, string reason, string evidenceCID);

    function suspendLicense(bytes32 licenseId, string calldata reason, string calldata evidenceCID) external {
        licenseStatus[licenseId] = RevocationRecord(Status.Suspended, reason, evidenceCID, block.timestamp, msg.sender);
        emit LicenseSuspended(licenseId, reason, evidenceCID);
    }

    function revokeLicense(bytes32 licenseId, string calldata reason, string calldata evidenceCID) external {
        licenseStatus[licenseId] = RevocationRecord(Status.Revoked, reason, evidenceCID, block.timestamp, msg.sender);
        emit LicenseRevoked(licenseId, reason, evidenceCID);
    }
}

5. Dispute Resolution Process

1. Initiation: License holder submits appeal via on-chain form with supporting evidence.
2. Juror Selection: Randomized selection from DAL-approved validator pool.
3. Evidence Review: Jurors access IPFS/Arweave evidence sets.
4. Voting: Jurors vote on reinstatement, modification, or confirmation of revocation.
5. Execution: Smart contract automatically updates license status based on outcome.

6. Governance Integration

• DAL: Defines juror eligibility, appeal timelines, and evidence submission standards.
• TLAAS (DLA): Enforces resulting status changes across all integrated systems.

7. Off-Chain Evidence Handling

• Metadata normalized to JSON and hashed before storage.
• Full evidence packages stored in redundant IPFS and Arweave nodes.
• Hash references included in on-chain case records.

8. Security Considerations

• Enforce multi-sig for all revocation transactions.
• Require proof-of-stake or bond for jurors to reduce frivolous participation.
• Use zk-SNARKs for sensitive evidence verification without exposing raw data.

9. Acceptance Criteria

• All revocations traceable to immutable on-chain events.
• Appeals resolved within governance-defined SLAs.
• Zero successful disputes due to data tampering.

Next Article: Automated Compliance Monitoring & Enforcement Agents