Excellent example of how Augur should be explained. Thank you Ben!
And still, I’m surprised ppl remain mad at Poyo. He tests in Production environment what had to be tested in Dev and Acceptance long ago. If not Poyo, it would be somebody else. Strange he was the only one. And lucky us Augur goes through this experience at early stage. We all have been offered the opportunity to thoroughly study the whitepaper, and had every chance to spot potential issues or validate the actual execution of algorithms once Augur went live. Hopefully, Poyo has already stretched Augur to its limits. Somebody paid the price, of course. But the vast majority will only benefits from these tests and get a much more robust product as a result.
The Augur contracts have no way of knowing how much you purchased your outcome tokens for, they're freely tradeable ERC-20's. You can trade them outside of the Augur contracts, and redeem winning or invalid outcome tokens back to the contracts. In an invalid market, the winning (1) is divided evenly among all the possible outcomes.
v2 this will change by having invalid has a trade-able outcome.
The proposed solution is making invalid an explicitly tradeable outcome in v2. So if a market seems invalid, you can buy invalid shares that will pay out to 1 if you are correct, just like any other outcome.
So, the augur client code now implements a facebook-esque algorithmic curation of markets and users should hope they're not "accidentally caught by the invalid market filter", but that's OK because you're already blocking long-term markets so you can force-upgrade everyone to augur version 2?
The Augur client now implements an optional toggle filter that will hide invalid, scam markets (any market where the current best bid/offer would profit as a result of a market resolving as invalid) . The filter can be removed by selecting a checkbox on the main market page.
The Augur client also prevents creation of long term markets, however nothing is actually blocked. You can fork the UI and remove the soft date limit, or interact with the contracts directly and there is no date limit. The cut off date was implemented as markets that resolve after the Augur v2 deployment risk a higher chance of resolving incorrectly due to the REP ---> REPv2 migration. Augur v1 has bugs in it, it needs a redeployment, but it will always exist and be useable.
There is no forced upgrade, the Augur v2 deployment would be a lot easier if there was and there wouldn't need to be a cutoff date. Users will need to manually and optionally decide to migrate their REP to new REPv2.
What do you mean by this? Guesser is plugged directly to the Augur back-end, you only need an ETH address to use it, there’s no custody of funds. They are doing amazing work for the ecosystem, creating well defined markets and providing liquidity. You can trade these markets and access the liquidity directly through the Augur app too. They even opened an Augur node that devs can use to build on top of the protocol recently.
To me the biggest strength of Augur is the ability to make markets on things that might not have very strict, objective ways of verifying their outcome, but trusting the aggregate common sense of the reporters it is obvious what the result would be. Hence why I never understood why the markets where the reporting time is a few minutes before the settlement time are considered invalid by the majority of REP holders. I think that by giving up on markets like these, Augur is losing one of its major advantages over centralized betting sites that cannot offer these events due to their centralized oracle system.
I used to think this, but now I understand a market with a further reporting time is actually better in terms of overall volume. It actually opens up an entirely new market for people that want their payouts now, but don't want to wait until market resolution, and people to step up and essentially give a "loan" and wait for payout for some percentage. Basically a market has been created that's risk-free income, with almost no risk if the market is valid. It's kind of like an accounts receivable loan market is appearing on Augur, and I wouldn't be surprised if we notice a Net30/60/90 reporting time after the realization of the event, along with pretty good risk free returns.
It's hella easy to answer: we want consistency in expectation.
If you make a dipshit market that expires before the stated purpose, the market is an invalid piece of shit. Period. End of sentence.
"But why?", you ask, "the result was the same regardless... at expiry AND based on the title/description!"
"Yes", I reply, "but how do we deal with it when it ISN'T the same?" Do we say "the market resolves as yes/no if there is a mismatch between title+description vs. expiry if the yes/no is consistent, but resolves as invalid if the yes/no is inconsistent"?
That inconsistency of approach is **dependent on the outcome** - a huge no-no in markets. The outcome must be 100% divorced from the market itself. The market must be independent of the outcome.
It may seem stupid when there is the same outcome no matter what, e.g. "ETH was over $200 the whole day, including midnight bro" but shit gets really weird when it's not.
To have faith in the system, you must trust the rules are being applied consistently, and the markets must be separate, not contingent or dependent, on the outcomes.
> To have faith in the system, you must trust the rules are being applied consistently, and the markets must be separate, not contingent or dependent, on the outcomes.
I agree that reporters interpreting questions in a different way than a given bettor is an added risk in this system, hence the easier it is to predict reporter behaviour the stabler markets will be. However I'd argue that achieving this through requiring reporters to agree to a rigid rulebook is going to be more harmful (by making many otherwise good markets invalid) than trusting that the sum of token holders using common sense will reach the same conclusion as the bettor.
"ETH was over $200 the whole day, including midnight bro" is still a better argument than "Well what if every space agency is conspiring against us, better mark this Will the moon exist tomorrow? market invalid" imo.
It's also the "type of thinking" that will make Augur useful in the future and not some morass of "small, fluffy" rules where people get to "feel" what's right.
I want a goddamn robot to (be able to) decide the market.
And if Augur was broken by 1 bad actor behaving selfishly... why didn't they catch that before launch?