[Excerpt of a discussion I had on the EOS NATION Facebook group]
Link: https://www.facebook.com/groups/EOSNation/permalink/2222677801312039/

David Adams:
Juni I know you have been involved with this since the very beginning. Do you think account holders should be entered into arbitration-enabled contracts by default? I think yes. Most people won't take the time look into arbitration until it is too late.

Me:
I don't think that is a bad idea for accounts to default with arbitration enabled, where more experienced users can then immediately choose to op-out (with a wait period of 3 days perhaps -- by removing all their funds from the contract). Those who op-out can transfer their funds to any accounts, while "safe-mode" or "protected" accounts are only able to transfer funds to another arbitration accounts. Will be helpful if people can have only a portion of their funds protected, and the unprotected funds can then be transferred to a different unprotected account under (hardware wallet) cold storage, etc.

David Adams:
No one would have a reason to complain with this kind of flexibility. The main reason people diss EOS, is because they think they have centralized control over freezing and reversing accounts. If users can opt in our out at will, it's the best of both worlds.

Juni:
A hybrid system can be very appealing.

1. In a way the arb-protected-accounts can be viewed as our normal spending account in a bank.
2. While accounts that have opted out of arbitration access/power (secured by multi-sig + hardware-wallet as one of the signatory) can be viewed as a longer-term fix-deposit account in a way (where those fraction of funds is rarely touched), and there is no concern by more paranoid individuals that their funds may be at risk of fluke arbitration or put at risk in case of bad governmental groups momentarily gaining power.