xkcd.com/250/

Some suggestions:

• Resolve according to >50% yes trader numbers rather than >50% yes odds, so it's not whale bait

• Resolve it in a month rather than 2y, so that it has a vastly better profit per time thus a vastly higher incentive for people to bet

This amount of lumping is just silly. Nobody trusts Twitter or Facebook or whatever as a whole, they trust specific people on those platforms.

Same too with a news organization when you're paying attention. I get a lot of my news from ArsTechnica, but I don't trust all the writers equally.

@DanHomerick also, trust to do what, specifically? Trust to supply accurate facts? Trust to understand the story being covered? Trust to not cherry pick or use misleading data? Trust to not ignore an important topic?

Accuracy, understanding, truthfulness, and coverage. News sources don't supply them in equal measure, and you turn to different sources for different needs.

@DanHomerick I think most people intuitively lump all those different metrics together when thinking about how much they trust a source, and they highly correlate together

@TheAllMemeingEye agreed that people often lump them. Strongly disagree that they actually highly correlate.

Sources with strong understanding of a topic rarely provide broad coverage. On social media, the most knowledgeable sources are often the worst for cherry picking data (and similar biases). You don't trust someone who's part of the story in the same way that you trust generic news org who's giving their generic "10,000 ft view" take on it.

@DanHomerick I guess truthfulness is probably the single metric that people most strongly associate with trust