In this section it seems that "collateral" is mixed with fees for jurors, while in the first round (the dispute itself) it says: "they will need to deposit an equivalent amount of collateral, along with initial dispute fees determined by the Aragon Court" (so there's a clear distinction between collateral and jurors fees).
Actually from this paragraph one may think that collateral in subsequent appeals is only meant for juror fees, but in Redistributing Collateral section below it says:
"If there was any appeal rounds before the final ruling, the total amount of collateral that was deposited for triggering each round will be assigned to the appealer supporting the final ruling."
All of this made me think, assuming in every round there are both collateral to be slashed/redistributed among proposer and appealer and fees to compensate jurors, that if we route (at contract level) all appeals through Proposal Agreements app (and then Proposal agreements app calls Court to raise the dispute) then we could collateral and fees separate in every round, so collateral would always stay on Proposal Agreements and Court wouldn't need to know about it. When Court would call rule function in Proposal Agreements, collateral would be redistributed. I think this would be cleaner as would keep Court agnostic about external collateral requirements.
In this section it seems that "collateral" is mixed with fees for jurors, while in the first round (the dispute itself) it says: "they will need to deposit an equivalent amount of collateral, along with initial dispute fees determined by the Aragon Court" (so there's a clear distinction between collateral and jurors fees). Actually from this paragraph one may think that collateral in subsequent appeals is only meant for juror fees, but in
Redistributing Collateralsection below it says: "If there was any appeal rounds before the final ruling, the total amount of collateral that was deposited for triggering each round will be assigned to the appealer supporting the final ruling." All of this made me think, assuming in every round there are both collateral to be slashed/redistributed among proposer and appealer and fees to compensate jurors, that if we route (at contract level) all appeals through Proposal Agreements app (and then Proposal agreements app calls Court to raise the dispute) then we could collateral and fees separate in every round, so collateral would always stay on Proposal Agreements and Court wouldn't need to know about it. When Court would callrulefunction in Proposal Agreements, collateral would be redistributed. I think this would be cleaner as would keep Court agnostic about external collateral requirements.Originally posted by @bingen in https://github.com/aragon/whitepaper/pull/22