Omen Market Resolution Rules

Sorry, I’ve been deep diving into Augur disputes to get a better understanding of what we could face. :sweat_smile:
I corrected.


Augur disputes are nightmare. I have a been victim of Augur scam market but it was according to Augur rules. Do you know Augur - Poyo cases?

I think the goal needs to be as little as possible invalid markets.
Those suggestions for a rule update are a good step in this direction.

I hope the Kleros Court will understand that it will provide most value if the invalid option is used as rarely as possible.


What is Omen protection from MM malicious activity? Poyo is proffesional MM for scam markets. He is clever and I am sure one day he will created a valid Omen scam market. Example - in same day there are 2 football games Everton vs Liverpool. Woman game will start in 12:30, Men game will start in 14:00. Omen market created for game in 12:30, but users think about game in 14:00. This is valid malicious market. How Kleros court will look on this case?


One more example. Does in 2021 republic party win election in Georgia?
What is Georgia in this case state in USA or country in the Caucasus region?
Is this market valid?
Omen Market resolution rules is a key topic for Omen success

1 Like

Yeah for sure, there are a few well known. Actually he said that he didn’t intend making invalid markets at the beginning. Poyo is very active on the prediction market discord.

Well Kleros is not the legislative but the judiciary. So apart a few rules required to protect itself (don’t require to participate to immoral actions such as assassination markets, make sure the facts can be known to the jurors in time, etc) it doesn’t set up the rules.
So that’s up to the dxDAO to approve rule changes.

My understanding is that it would be a valid market
“Entities are assumed to reference the most obvious entity with that name, taking the context into account.”

Hmm… What is most obvious entity with that name? In this particular example.

One thing to note: in principal those rules needed to be part of the platform - or at least when creating the question from Omen on it somehow needs to be clear that this question is coming from Omen and does fall under the Omen rules.

Otherwise it is for people resolving markets not clear: which rules apply since different products other than Omen might use realitio as well with different rules.


That’s a good point. I’ll ask Edmund if it is possible.

Well in 2021 there doesn’t seem to be elections in either so it would resolve as invalid. But assuming that there were elections in both, it would refer to the US state (since the republican party only get 1-2% of the votes in Georgia (Country)).

in order to have a good ecosystem, there has to be a new entity in play.

Right now we have: Market creators, liquidity providers, Traders, Dispute Jurors.

We need Market Validators: these are the entity that validates markets the way miners validate BTC blocks, they should be incentivised with a fee that Market Creators pay, that fee should be extremely low for the amount of work they do (1% maybe), they should also be incentivised to be fair by staking some value on a smart contract.

The 1% fee extracted could be payed after market resolution to inline the incentives of Market Creators and Market Validators.

There is too many rules already and the dispute process is very expensive, this has to be done.

Curation (see this TCR on Curate) will act this way.
It won’t be an extra fee but just a deposit which can be put by anyone (in practice market creators and liquidity providers in order to give confidence to people who’d like to trade in their markets).

I was a poyo victim, happy to help make sure this is poyo proof :slight_smile:

1 Like A good read in case anyone is interested


Does anyone else have comment on the new proposed version of the rules?
If not we could make a proposal.

The proposal has been put to vote:

I’m new to this forum so apologies if this has been addressed elsewhere. Is there a reason we cannot specify relative block heights in Omen markets? For example: Will a validator on Ethereum be slashed within 10,000 blocks of the mainnet Serenity deployment.

Your question would be fine. The rule against relative date is against questions like “What will be the price of ETH in 10 days?”, because the question is always gonna show “in 10 days”.


The rules against incentivizing immoral behavior are too broad. It should only apply to violent actions someone could actually feasibly do — there’s a huge gap between SWATing someone and actually assassinating a president. The amount of money to be made in even a popular prediction market is a miniscule incentive compared to the existing motivations to do so. A more reasonable approach would be to ban questions that can only be accomplished by violent actions. Questions that might hypothetically be accomplished by violent actions should only be invalid if violent actions actually happen that could plausibly be connected to the prediction market—for example, Iran drone striking a president can’t be considered to have been incentivized by the market.

Finally, independently of this, the FAQ should include these rules, the flow for creating a market should absolutely include these rules and have a checkbox saying you’ve read them, think your question is valid, and maybe also that you’ve looked through the existing markets and don’t think yours is a duplicate.

Thank you.

Feel free to propose a less strict version of the rules so we could discuss.