Full reply would be its own post, which is in my drafts folder in an early stage. I thought I was clear that subsidy is V, in its own way, so that won’t be a problem. It can help with the other problems either by subsidizing those solutions directly in some cases (e.g. if the market doesn’t resolve, you pay everyone for the time value of their money with the subsidy) or by simply offering a sufficiently big prize that people disregard the other factors.
You can, of course, throw money at the problem, and a sufficient amount will get people to go for it anyway, although solving or minimizing the problems here makes that much cheaper. A more interesting question is how to efficiently do that.
Non-anonymous trading is very different, and is not robust to cheating.
Any disagreement with Robin Hanson (https://twitter.com/robinhanson/status/1022535475410731009)?
It seems to me that subsidy addresses V, II and maybe III, but not so much IV and I. Does that seem right?
(Also, I think he’s suggested non-anonymous trading as a cure for insider trading before)
Full reply would be its own post, which is in my drafts folder in an early stage. I thought I was clear that subsidy is V, in its own way, so that won’t be a problem. It can help with the other problems either by subsidizing those solutions directly in some cases (e.g. if the market doesn’t resolve, you pay everyone for the time value of their money with the subsidy) or by simply offering a sufficiently big prize that people disregard the other factors.
You can, of course, throw money at the problem, and a sufficient amount will get people to go for it anyway, although solving or minimizing the problems here makes that much cheaper. A more interesting question is how to efficiently do that.
Non-anonymous trading is very different, and is not robust to cheating.