What makes you think the “deciders” are going to make better decisions when the market is volatile? The volatility is going to represent, after all, uncertainty on the pool of betters.
(The bigger problem for such a governance model to my eye is that betting markets provide -information-. I don’t see that this information is freely convertible into -decisions-. If you’re betting on decisions, effectively you’re voting with money.)
Might it be possible to have a kind of uncertainty feedback loop, where volatility in some areas created uncertainty, and therefore volatility, in other areas, until everything was maximally uncertain? :)
What makes you think the “deciders” are going to make better decisions when the market is volatile? The volatility is going to represent, after all, uncertainty on the pool of betters.
(The bigger problem for such a governance model to my eye is that betting markets provide -information-. I don’t see that this information is freely convertible into -decisions-. If you’re betting on decisions, effectively you’re voting with money.)
Might it be possible to have a kind of uncertainty feedback loop, where volatility in some areas created uncertainty, and therefore volatility, in other areas, until everything was maximally uncertain? :)
The governance model is “vote on values, bet on beliefs.” It’s the “values” part that lets you convert information into decisions.