I mean, the universal dispute resolution is violence, or the threat thereof. Typically this is encapsulated in governments, courts, and authorities, in order to make an escalation path that rarely comes down to actual violence.
For low-value wagers/markets, a less powerful authority generally suffices—a company or even individual running the market/site. The predictions can be written such that it’s unlikely to be disputed, and to specify a dispute-resolution mechanism, but in the end the enforcement is by whoever is holding the money.
For algorithmically-determinable outcomes, it may be that a distributed/consensus mechanism could be used, so the “central authority” is actually “whoever has the most compute”, and most of the time that authority won’t bother to do anything nefarious.
Any system that doesn’t have clear mechanisms for appeal of disputes, and specification of how a result will be decided and enforced is just a toy.
I mean, the universal dispute resolution is violence, or the threat thereof. Typically this is encapsulated in governments, courts, and authorities, in order to make an escalation path that rarely comes down to actual violence.
For low-value wagers/markets, a less powerful authority generally suffices—a company or even individual running the market/site. The predictions can be written such that it’s unlikely to be disputed, and to specify a dispute-resolution mechanism, but in the end the enforcement is by whoever is holding the money.
For algorithmically-determinable outcomes, it may be that a distributed/consensus mechanism could be used, so the “central authority” is actually “whoever has the most compute”, and most of the time that authority won’t bother to do anything nefarious.
Any system that doesn’t have clear mechanisms for appeal of disputes, and specification of how a result will be decided and enforced is just a toy.