A long-standing mismatch exists in software development:

Developers are responsible for the results, while reviewers do not bear responsibility.
This structure isn't problematic in small-scale early stages, but it gradually amplifies in complex systems.
In practices on platforms like GitHub, many problematic codes are merged into the main branch "after approval."
MergeProof aims to correct this.
Through a mechanism, reviewers also need to bear responsibility:
• Participating in reviews requires staking
• Correct reviews can earn rewards
• Review errors can lead to losses
This turns "approval" from a lightweight action into a decision that requires judgment.
In the context of current Vibe coding, this adjustment is practically meaningful.
As tools like Cursor lower the development barrier, code quality becomes more volatile.
The system needs not just more code, but more reliable filtering mechanisms.
MergeProof offers a structural improvement.
It shifts the issue of code quality from a "cultural level" to a "mechanism level" through economic constraints.
This shift could redefine how teams build software.