Background
David Wallace is a prominent physicist and philosopher who advocates many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.
I think he is wrong in claiming that "decoherence implies branching" in his book, for reasons summarized in this youtube video: https://youtu.be/ZfU3LKGFMOc
Resolution criteria
This market resolves "Yes", if Wallace publicly admits that his claim is problematic. This market resolves "No", if I publicly admit that my own criticism is problematic.
If neither happens, you could still profit by predicting the traders' opinions of who is right.
See also:
https://manifold.markets/ttoe/are-feldbrugge-lehners-turok-wrong
https://manifold.markets/ttoe/are-rovelli-and-vidotto-wrong-about
1,000@Sammytz9Ru If neither of us admits our respective views as problematic, the market will not resolve. The market is set to close in year 3000. Maybe the mods will decide before that, or maybe not.
@MachiNi The paper is here https://www.researchgate.net/publication/378072701_Decoherence_does_not_imply_branching
Wallace had seen the draft before I put out the paper. He did not point out any mistake on my part in his email to me after seeing the draft.
In that case, I'll bet yes because sooner or later the people who bet NO are going to get tired of waiting.
He acknowledges that the matter is open to interpretation, but it is unlikely to declare that he is mistaken. However it is almost equally unlikely that you will admit that your reasoning is flawed, because after all, it's a matter of opinion.