3 ms·
> The really bizarre part about this platform is that not only is the person posing the question responsible for judging the outcome So the person posing a que
by PragmaticPulp 5y ago
> The really bizarre part about this platform is that not only is the person posing the question responsible for judging the outcome
So the person posing a question can arbitrarily choose the answer that benefits themself financially? Just click the button that says the outcome you bet on was the correct one, then collect the money?
This seems like a non-starter for any platform that wants to be taken seriously. What am I missing?
- skrebbel 5y agoI think what you're missing is the reputation of the person who poses the question. I think the idea is that you don't get questions like on Quora, asked by internet randos. Nobody would bet on those, for exactly the reasons you brought up. But someone who already has a following, someone who has a strong reputation in the field that the question is about, would create quite the controversy and lose much of their audience if they'd first strongly signal boost their question among said audience, and subsequently pick the wrong answer. So I think the idea is, when choosing what questions to bet on, you're not only thinking about the question itself but also about the trustworthiness of who poses it. A bit like Kickstarter in a way. That makes it part of the risk, maybe even part of the fun. This also means that this service will fail if they don't manage to attract sufficiently high-profile people to pose questions and signal boost them.