4 ms·
Oracles are cool, but I humbly submit user-resolved markets as a cleaner and better mechanism. As akrolsmir says, someone could commit to resolving according t
by jahooma 5y ago
Oracles are cool, but I humbly submit user-resolved markets as a cleaner and better mechanism.
As akrolsmir says, someone could commit to resolving according to an Oracle.
But mainly, it allows for a diversity of approaches to serve different user and subject-matter needs. Some markets can be resolved subjectively, others need to rigorously specify each case. Plus, the real world is often ambiguous. You need someone you trust to make the right judgment call.
- ALittleLight 5y agoUser resolved simply won't work if people care about winning their currency. And people will care if they ever use real money or become popular. Imagine - I create a market "Donald Trump will be speaker of the House in 2022" and people bet on that. I, through sock puppet accounts if necessary, bet that he will as much as possible. Then, I just resolve the bet so that I win. Cheaters will have all the currency and cheating will make the predictions useless or worse than useless.
- jahooma 5y agoIt sounds plausible, but our experience so far is that cheating is very rare. Out of hundreds of markets, we had our first clear incorrect resolution yesterday. But the argument is not simply that people won't cheat often. The argument is that people will choose to bet in markets where the creator is trusted. Even if the majority of creators cheated, users would react appropriately and flock to the ones who don't. It's just like how you purchase goods and services. They often have a chance to keep your money without providing what they promised. But in practice, they can't run a long term business that way. By the way, even in our play-money currency, the market creators earn a fee on the traders' profits.