diff --git a/design/state-channel-committee.md b/design/state-channel-committee.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..e57f571
--- /dev/null
+++ b/design/state-channel-committee.md
@@ -0,0 +1,122 @@
+A State Channel Committee Scheme
+================================
+
+It should in general be possible to close payment and state channels when one of
+its participants goes offline. This presents a problem: how do we know that the
+single party that attempts to close the channel presents the *latest* state of
+the channel. It could be beneficial to present an older state, where more money
+was allocated to that party.
+
+Most channel schemes therefore introduce a dispute period; a period of time in
+which the state at which a channel is closed can be disputed. During the dispute
+period the other party can prove that a state is old by providing a newer state
+that was signed by all parties.
+
+But dispute periods do not help when they are needed the most; when a party goes
+offline. An offline party cannot participate in the dispute mechanism.
+
+Schemes such as [PISA][1] solve this problem by introducing a monitoring
+service. This monitoring service will engage in the dispute process on behalf of
+the offline party. To ensure that the monitoring service acts honestly, it puts
+up collateral that can be claimed when any wrongdoing is detected.
+
+More recently, the [BRICK][2] scheme was introduced that does away with the
+dispute period all together. Instead it employs a committee that can sign off on
+the closing of a channel. Committee members are kept honest by the collateral
+that they put up.
+
+Here, we'd like to introduce a scheme that improves on BRICK by requiring less
+blockchain interactions and smaller signatures. We simplify payment of fees, and
+provide a mitigation against sybil attacks regarding collateral.
+
+Updates
+-------
+
+Updates to the channel state are only valid when they are signed by all
+participants and committee members. For efficiency, these signatures can be
+combined into a single signature using Schnorr or BLS. Each new update contains
+an incremental sequence number.
+
+Fees
+----
+
+Fees to compensate the committee members for their efforts can be paid by
+increasing the committee member's balances in each channel update.
+
+Unilateral closing
+------------------
+
+Closing a channel by a single participant requires a valid state update, and a
+signed statement by a committee majority that this is the latest state update.
+
+Collateral
+----------
+
+Committee members are only allowed to participate once they've secured
+collateral on-chain.
+
+If they sign a state update, and then are found to have signed off on closing
+the channel on an older state update, then they lose their collateral. This
+collateral is mostly burned to prevent sybil attacks. A small part of the
+collateral is paid to the party that provided proof of wrongdoing. This allows a
+single honest committee member to keep the rest of the committee in check.
+
+Bribing
+-------
+
+To prevent bribing attacks the collateral that is burned when a committee
+majority cheats should be larger than the value of whatever is exchanged in the
+channel.
+
+Withholding
+-----------
+
+To prevent withholding attacks by the committee majority, they should not be
+able to retrieve their collateral when they are still participating in state
+channels.
+
+Note that a committee member is free to initiate the closing of channels that it
+participates in to retrieve its collateral.
+
+Privacy
+-------
+
+To prevent committee members from learning about the contents of intermediate
+state updates, everything in the state may be blinded, except for the balances
+of the committee members (so that they can check the fee), and the sequence
+number (so that they know which state is the latest).
+
+Improvements on the state of the art
+------------------------------------
+
+We improve on the PISA and BRICK protocols by removing the need for extra
+unidirectional payment channels to pay the monitoring service / committee.
+Because we require all state updates to be co-signed by the committee they can
+ensure that fees are paid there.
+
+We improve on the BRICK protocol by allowing signatures from all participants
+and committee members to be combined into a single signature using Schnorr or
+BLS signatures.
+
+We improve on the BRICK protocol by requiring less interaction with the
+blockchain when closing unilaterally. In particular, we do not require each
+committee member to perform a transaction during closing; instead we accept a
+single transaction with the combined signatures of a majority of the committee.
+
+We mitigate a sybil attack that is possible in the BRICK protocol, by burning
+collateral in case of wrongdoing.
+
+Further work
+------------
+
+Our scheme requires a smart contract to open and close state channels. It would
+be interesting to see whether we can remove the need for a smart contract so
+that this scheme could be used on asynchronous blockchains such as [ABC][3].
+
+Our scheme still lacks a formal proof.
+
+It also lacks a proof-of-concept implementation and performance measurements.
+
+[1]: https://www.cs.cornell.edu/~iddo/pisa.pdf
+[2]: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1905.11360.pdf
+[3]: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1909.10926.pdf
\ No newline at end of file