Mhairi
March 3, 2022, 3:14pm
1
The SHERLOCK_CLAIM price identifier is intended to allow users of Sherlock to request the DVM for arbitration in the case of a disagreement about an smart contract exploit insurance claim.
## Headers
| UMIP-132 | |
|-------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| UMIP Title | Add SHERLOCK_CLAIM as a price identifier |
| Authors | Jack Sanford, Sean Brown |
| Status | Last Call |
| Created | 09/28/21 |
| Discourse Link | https://discourse.uma.xyz/t/sherlock-exploit-protection-umip/1344 |
## Summary
The SHERLOCK_CLAIM price identifier is intended to allow users of [Sherlock](https://sherlock.xyz/) to request the DVM for arbitration in the case of a disagreement about an smart contract exploit insurance claim.
## Motivation
Sherlock is a new type of exploit protection protocol launching this September. The idea is to have smart contract security experts assess/price protocol coverage, then get paid based on the performance of the protocols (no hacks = large payout, large hack = no payout). Protocols who want coverage will pay Sherlock monthly premiums, and in return, Sherlock will use it’s staking pool to repay hacks at protocols. Sherlock is doing a guarded launch with $30M in staking pool funds and writing coverage for up to $10M per protocol. More details can be found here.
Other exploit protection protocols rely on their tokenholders to decide whether claims should be paid out or not. Sherlock wants to do better and would like to use UMA’s Data Verification Mechanism as the final escalation to decide on claims payouts. This would help coverage buyers feel more comfortable that they have access to an unbiased party’s decision on a claim.
For context, Sherlock agrees on coverage terms with every protocol. An example can be seen here (TBA). These terms will be broadly the same across all protocols but there may be extra language added for protocol-specific exploit risks.
show original