If I were to revise your summary, I would say that a marqt is a living online poll – you can vote on something today, but if you change your mind later, you can change your vote.

I'm not sure what you mean by incentivizing pollsters and respondents to game the results, but let me take a crack at what I imagine you're thinking about (please let me know if I'm totally off).

Let's consider a scenario. Person X has a lot of influence, and so they tell everyone they know to marq their marqt true. In a world where the marqt has enough liquidity, there would potentially be a person Y that disagrees and also has influence, telling their followers to marq it false. And along the way people would add remarqs, allowing new voters to discern the nuance and existing voters to change their vote if they see a compelling enough reason why. The more people that participate, the closer you get to representing how true or false that marqt is, which strengthens the validity of the number, which creates value, and whoever is responsible for creating that value should be rewarded, along with everyone else that voted and commented and participated in that creation of value.

> But [facts] are objectively verifiable with evidence, not supposition or rhetoric.

I would say everything is fair game. Evidence can be subjective too. Rhetoric can be quite convincing, especially if you have influence and repeat it over and over and others continue echoing it.