The paragraph is in reference to Kleros (check endnotes), claiming that the dispute resolution process it utilizes, is not based on the merits of each party’s position but based on a prediction of how other jurors will vote.
I am not sure how valid this is, people vote based on the evidence provided which is likely to result in a majority vote for whichever party is correct.
The position it seems is circular, which cant be categorized as legitimate fud, any thoughts?
>any thoughts? Yeah, it's basless FUD. Exactly what you would expect from a bunch of fucking filthy poo eating subhuman Pajeets. Because those are the ones who put this together. Worthless pieces of shit didn't take the time to read into it. A fucking monkey could do their job. But what do you expect anyway. After all Klaus Schwab is nothing more than a puppet either
Jordan Smith
What do they propose as the alternative though? It seems as though there is none, which basically means they must yield at some point.
Jose Campbell
it is retarded FUD. i read the whole thing and basically they're saying "let's put in centralized control for dispute resolution so we can make sure things go according to """"our""""" plan teeeheeee" not even kidding. absolute fucks want to control everything literally admitted that there is a working system that's using game theory based on other jurors decisions, i.e. there is indeed a way to figure out exactly what is going to be the outcome, and then WITHIN THE SAME SENTENCE say "inherent uncertainties". i mean, come on that's why WEF is such a fucking joke and the chainstink announcement did nothing for it. they're a bunch of dinosaurs who are afraid of crypto swallowing all of their power
Ethan Watson
I thought Kleros already has a solution to this and the insentive is already there to make correct decisions instead of going with popular vote.
