Silence becomes approval
A delivered slot the Operator neither signs nor disputes becomes claimable when the review window elapses. Anyone may trigger the claim.
Engineering assessment, not a legal opinion
What follows describes what the contract mechanically permits. Whether it satisfies a given regulator is for counsel. Residual questions are listed rather than resolved.
What happens
Delivery starts a review window (1–30 days, fixed per allocation at funding). If the Operator does nothing before it expires, claimTimedOut(escrowId) pays the bound Creator address. The call is permissionless.
This exists because a Creator never signs anything. Their bound receiver is frequently an exchange deposit address they cannot transact from, so a design requiring their signature would strand them. Silence has to favour the party who cannot act.
Non-custody evaluation
Holds, and is the strongest case of the six. Nobody authorises this transfer — not VF, not the Operator. It is the passage of time plus a rule fixed at funding. VF cannot prevent it, delay it (the timer is on-chain), or redirect it.
Notably VF cannot stop it even if it wanted to. There is no pause that reaches a Claimable slot.
No-service evaluation
Holds. There is no payment instruction for VF to execute. The contract settles on a condition both parties accepted at funding. If VF broadcasts the claim it is doing what any observer could do, and if VF does nothing the Creator or anyone else can call it.
Residual questions for counsel
- The review window is chosen by the Operator at funding within on-chain bounds. A 30-day window is a long time for a Creator to wait, and while it is consented-to, counsel may want to consider whether the marketplace's role in presenting that term carries any duty.
- VF's UI is what prompts the Operator to sign or dispute. Failing to prompt does not move funds anywhere the Operator did not agree, but it does shape which ending occurs.