4 ms·
I think the "volume" problem breaks further into two critical sub-questions: 1. A big selling point of these markets is that there are theoretical commercial v
by drcode 8y ago
I think the "volume" problem breaks further into two critical sub-questions:
1. A big selling point of these markets is that there are theoretical commercial value to predictions- i.e. a company could get information of the likely success of their new product line ahead of time, to help them make strategic adjustments. However, Robin Hansen (one of the top economists working on betting markets) says, counterintuitively, that industries have been very luke warm about actually doing this in reality, for various psychological and economic reasons (he got into this in his econtalk interview I think)
2. Suppose bets on Augur start ramping up- How do we know these are real bets from real customers? The Augur company has immense funds on hand and its easy on blockchains to simulate fake volume through anonymous accounts. I have no reason to doubt the ethics of the Augur team, but it's unfortunate that if their marketplace starts taking off that it'll be so hard to tell how organic the growth is.
- berberous 8y agoWhy is 2 a problem? I'd love to use Augur, but the liquidity is low. If the Augur team wants to seed it with liquidity and good bets, I'm game to take the other side. This is also how many startups start out -- for example, the Reddit cofounders faked a lot of usage and self-submitted posts in order to get early traction.
- drcode 8y agoSure, it's fine for them to be market makers, if they're transparent about it.
- gwern 8y agoThe Augur Foundation will never do that because it would put them in immense legal jeopardy from the SEC/CFTC, and at no point in Augur's growth would that make sense: when Augur is small, the gain from wash trading is much smaller than the potential fines (Intrade was fined $3m this year alone, and it doesn't even operate any more), and when it's large, it's unnecessary.