Many people care about policy decisions, so I don’t think we can expect that bettors whose wealth is mostly independent of the futarchy markets (i.e. the futarchy is not their chief source of income) will have no or little influence. So while wealth may end up slightly correlated with policy assessment skills, I don’t think we can expect that correlation to be strong.
What if we limited how much new external money (that they didn’t win from the markets) people can put on futarchy markets (each year)? Also, how much could depend on their success in the markets. If we can let people make a lot of money quickly in these markets starting from low input funds, then we can reduce distortions.
Maybe also let people borrow money from the markets with collateral if their positions are close to “neutral”, if we can define that?
If the cap is very low, then the market could be significantly distorted, e.g. by exacerbating favourite-longshot bias.
Maybe we can cap the bet size as a function of the expected payoff, too?
What if we limited how much new external money (that they didn’t win from the markets) people can put on futarchy markets (each year)? Also, how much could depend on their success in the markets. If we can let people make a lot of money quickly in these markets starting from low input funds, then we can reduce distortions.
Maybe also let people borrow money from the markets with collateral if their positions are close to “neutral”, if we can define that?
Maybe we can cap the bet size as a function of the expected payoff, too?