Douglas_Reay comments on [LINK] Intrade Shuts Down - Less Wrong

9 Post author: Douglas_Reay 15 March 2013 09:12AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (30)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Douglas_Reay 17 March 2013 08:39:57PM 2 points [-]

You'd have to pay a percentage of proceeds to the authorities in order to monetize staying an authority over selling your reputation for a guaranteed win in bitcoins.

Depends on the authority type. The pre-agreed format type of authority shouldn't need paying; nor one that relies upon mass voting to make decisions. Because in neither case is there a small group of controllers with the power to 'fix' the result.

One that uses a panel of experts will need some way to prevent a cabal of experts colluding together, and some form of reward for their time. The reward might be the reputation they gain from being seen as an expert (like with WikiPedia). The anti-collusion measure might be by having quite a large panel and selecting 7 members from it at random for each decision (preferably, selected only after the bets have been laid). However, yes, the system ought to be set up in a sufficiently flexible manner to allow each authority to be able to set in advance a rate of 'cut' for bets using them as the decider (with competition between authorities keeping such rates low).