I’m with UMA which is an optimistic oracle. It uses a schellingpoint model with skin in the game to motivate good outcomes.
What’s interesting is that Polymarket went from centralized resolution to decentralized, but that was an upset for some market participants who expected the cultural precedents of prediction markets to continue on, but of course they didn’t—Schellingpoint model has a different jurisprudence.
What you’re suggesting here is a more intentional management of jurisprudence. The times this comes up the most, though, isn’t in cases with disputed evidence so much as ambiguities in the market rules. Things happen in real life that either evade the rules or make one of them really awkward, resulting in a dispute.
You might want to look at some of the historical debates, which you’re right, happen at great length in the discussion format, with UMA. Could be fun to riff on it at some point if you’re keen!
We will always support you
Hey Mike, fascinating stuff!
I’m with UMA which is an optimistic oracle. It uses a schellingpoint model with skin in the game to motivate good outcomes.
What’s interesting is that Polymarket went from centralized resolution to decentralized, but that was an upset for some market participants who expected the cultural precedents of prediction markets to continue on, but of course they didn’t—Schellingpoint model has a different jurisprudence.
What you’re suggesting here is a more intentional management of jurisprudence. The times this comes up the most, though, isn’t in cases with disputed evidence so much as ambiguities in the market rules. Things happen in real life that either evade the rules or make one of them really awkward, resulting in a dispute.
You might want to look at some of the historical debates, which you’re right, happen at great length in the discussion format, with UMA. Could be fun to riff on it at some point if you’re keen!