> if enough people agree that I lied, you get a portion of the market fees
This creates a host of post-closing political incentives. You are no longer betting on an event outcome, but on a consensus process.
This creates a host of post-closing political incentives. You are no longer betting on an event outcome, but on a consensus process.
The theory is that the version of REP that reports the truth will be more valuable on the open market, and that the split is a credible threat which keeps everyone honest, so it will seldom actually happen.
> This creates a host of post-closing political incentives. You are no longer betting on an event outcome, but on a consensus process.
even on scicast, which was running (largely) apolitical questions and had impartial academics resolving the questions, you needed to be aware that you weren't betting on the outcome, you were betting on how somebody would decide the outcome.
it tended to be more of an issue the fuzzier the question, or the the punchier and more news-headline-y the short version of the question was. (which also made it more likely to attract the newer, less sophisticated users.)
seeing the problems that even scicast had with poorly worded questions, i don't have much hope for augur.