Can anonymity add to the quality of debate?
When engaging people on an information market the goal is to get them to speak up and retrieve the information sitting with them. This is what enables effective “information aggregation” – when all the players are contributing with their private information: information that only they have access to. This is not the norm. In a face-to-face meeting, you would watch out what your peers and superiors would say to what you say, so being the social animals we are, we watch out for inappropriateness. While being a good thing in general, this lowers the quality if a debate, as...
read morePrediction Markets Journal
I keep coming across articles about prediction markets, and although idea markets are not necessarily prediction markets, but another type of information market, this journal offers a lot of good insights about them: The Journal of Prediction Markets. While many of the articles are concerned with precision of prediction markets, which are not that interesting in respect to information markets’ potential for a tool for deliberation, yet there are some articles that focus on design of idea markets, such as this one: “The Design of Idea Markets: An Economist’s...
read moreMeasuring and rewarding contributors
One of the interesting aspects of We-Decide is that it creates incentives for members of the community to participate in drafting proposals. The information market (see an example of information market platform here) will measure member contribution by giving them credits, which members can “invest” in proposals of interest. When members earn additional credits (for having invested in a proposal that gains attracts others), these are kept account of in a non-cash account, and turned into real cash by the amount the community has set aside for a given period, for all virtual credits earned...
read more
Recent Comments