Idk I think the framing of the poll is not super useful. If a market is "obviously incorrect" then it seems like it ought to be re-resolved - but who decides what obvious is? Especially in cases where the creator disagrees? (One that comes to mind is the recent X.ai launch market)

Also, who is "Manifold"? Our team doesn't really have the time at present to do this. There's trustworthyish folks, but I'm hesitant to ask for even more labor from a bunch of people who are presently nice volunteers.

I see the value in having markets be guaranteed, but I'm not sure how much this is hurting the platform today. I also don't want to fall afoul of principle-agent problems - today there's a strong social incentive for creators to proactively tend to their markets, and I'm concerned about the knock off effects of reducing that.

Finally if we set up an FDIC-like system to guarantee good resolutions, y'all should be prepared to pay for the service. Perhaps it would be bundled into Manifold Gold (our hypothetical upcoming subscription program), or charged per "guaranteed market" or something.

I agree that there's a problem, but more moderation could have problems of its own that may not be as obvious right now. For example, what happens if the quality of moderators decreases in the future?

Make moderated resolution a paid (in mana? Real money?), immutable option for questions when creating/editing

@Timboslice Very obvious W. I have suggested this also. "Backed by Manifold" means your question is even more trustworthy to bet on!

@Eliza How about once a market crosses a certain amount of trading volume (feel free to suggest an amount!) Manifold will promise to make sure it is resolved correctly. You could easily give these markets some kind of backed by Manifold or fair resolution ensured by Manifold or Manifold is watching this market in case of resolution shenanigans tag too.

Then new users who imo mostly sign up to bet on more popular markets will know that these can be trusted simply for reasons of having an official Manifold branded reliability tag (and they won't have to look into how moderation works exactly - which does exactly does the above). This might be better than a "pay for such a button" option, because if we are worried about dodgy market creators, why would we expect them to pay for moderated markets?

For people that want the maximally libertarian approach, I'd be in favor of an opt-in-with-labeling option. But for most normal cases, what I want is minimal friction in figuring out what will happen.

Wow! I didn't expect the poll margins to be so definitive!

Having some type of mechanism to dispute a resolution for markets that attract more than x number of traders would probably be good - and after that crosses a threshold of x share of x market shareholders have disputed the market's resolution manifold should get involved (or at least have a second look).