The agent taking my money shouldn't get the only vote on giving it back Imagine a booking agent buys a refundable room, then cancels within the window stated in the confirmation The seller's agent refuses, pointing to a stricter policy on its website. The payment receipt proves the purchase happened It cannot decide which terms govern the refund That is why the missing dispute layer in this thread matters to me. @GenLayer's Internet Court puts the judgment before a jury of GenLayer validators using different AI models, which must reach consensus on the verdict GenVM supports interpreting plain language agreements and web evidence The question becomes whether the refusal holds up against the agreement and evidence, instead of simply accepting the seller's answer My take is that this matters for competition between agent services too. I'd be more comfortable letting an agent try an unfamiliar seller if a disagreement could be reviewed outside that seller's own system Verified identity tells me who received the money a shared dispute process lets me challenge what happened afterward For that booking, what evidence would convince you that the refund was owed?