Prediction Markets, but With Subjectivity: Does Rootclaim Have Pandemic Applications?

The Monetary Wars Part XIII

Predictions markets are nothing new, though they've generally been suppressed, which is itself an interesting and revealing fact. Perhaps too many politically inconvenient events like elections that run counter to polling would grow too revealing over time? Maybe the bureaucrats of the administrative states who mostly string the Native American population along in dependence while bribing a few chiefs with casinos need to keep gambling under wraps?

A couple of Facebook friends have pointed toward a new prediction market project: Rootclaim.

At a glance, it looks like something Steve Kirsch might enjoy: bets of substantial size (not as large as some Steve proposes, but $100k isn't nothing) about some sorts of results.

One downside is that results are judged by experts. There is always going to be some subjectivity in the judgment of a bet, but limiting conflicts of interest could be difficult in some cases. And really, who are "the experts" anyhow?

---

Pandemic Wagers?

Upon a quick scan, I find a couple of headings regarding repurposed medicine for the treatment of COVID-19. From one of those that lists several potential medicines.

Rootclaim’s Proposal 

We propose the establishment of an independent commission composed of medical and scientific experts with the remit to:

• Collect all research on repurposed drugs and contact researchers for clarifications. 

• Determine the weaknesses and reliability of each study.

• Estimate the probability of efficacy of various repurposed treatments, considering different indicators of efficacy such as their mechanism of action, observational studies, and controlled trials. 

• Assess the risks and interactions of each, relying on decades of real-world experience.

• Build protocols of repurposed treatments that best balance risks and benefits. Different protocols should be built, based on patient profiles and disease stages.

These recommendations should form the backbone for a two-front lobbying campaign to convince decision-makers and encourage public adoption.

For decision-makers:

• Lobby for adoption by public health authorities.

• Lobby decision-makers and politicians to support the initiative publicly.

For public and doctors:

• Familiarize doctors and nurses with the late-stage disease protocol.

• Familiarize GPs and family doctors with the early stage and preventative protocols.

• Public information campaigns to promote the initiative and reduce scepticism.

At surface level, our proposal seems fairly trivial: use the drugs we already have at our disposal, instead of focusing on developing new ones months or years down the line. Unfortunately, and with catastrophic consequences, implementing this obvious option is extremely difficult within the current incentive structure. But make no mistake – this is the most promising path out of the pandemic.

---

Can We Trust This Incarnation of Prediction Markets?

I worry about both the reliance on experts as well as the veracity of data that might be used. And given that reputations are at stake, and results could be used to bolster or sink reputations (including those of billion and trillion dollar companies), the pressure from conflicts of interest might destroy the primary value of the mission.

But I'd also like to see who is behind this. That person is Saar Wilf, who is new to me. Wilf seems to be an Israeli businessman who sold a company to Ebay for a lot of money and plays poker. This tells me that he's good at something and I'd like him at my poker practice table, but not much else. That company was a fraud detection company, absorbed via Paypal. I don't have much to go on to understand Wilf, but this was a particularly interesting part of an interview about Rootclaim from a few years back:

What do you mean by aligning with another result? Do you guys at Rootclaim not think Assad was the one who attacked using chemical weapons?

With a fairly high certainty, this was an attack by the opposition forces.

How do you know?

We don’t have a secret recording – we’re relying on evidence that’s known to everyone. This is one of the triggers that helped me develop the system. I saw how the quality of discussions on blogs was much more serious than that published by governments and intelligence agencies. And this is true both for the Russians who said the opposition groups were responsible, and the Americans who blamed Assad.

Both the Russians and Americans distorted reality?

Both sides published basic errors regarding the timing, angles and range of the ordnance. In contrast, independent researchers produced strong evidence. Why? Because they are open to criticism. And yet, even when the discussion was at a high level, every side was convinced it was right. What’s funny is that the people who are right about the chemical attack in Syria are wrong about the downing of the Malaysian Airlines plane over Ukraine in July 2014.

Why?

Because they all come from the same political angle, or they support Russia or the United States. It shows how many analyses are biased, bias is one of the main reasons for poor analyses. – and that’s why we haven’t seen one group that has accused both the Russians of the Malaysian plane attack and the Syrian opposition of the chemical attacks.

And what about the plane? Who shot that down?

Ukrainians claim the Russians did it, the Russians claim the Ukrainians. The answer: Pro-Russian forces in Ukraine hit it by accident.

What you’re doing is interesting, but to me it sounds like a black box.

It’s not a black box – it’s mathematical models of probability theory. It’s a complex system, right, it’s not simple. But every mathematician will understand what it does.

Wilf makes an interesting and subtle point, which is that we can apply Bayesian thinking to problems that are not necessarily mathematically stated—at least casually (I do), though I know that among the A.I. crowd are people who claim to do this effectively, and I’d like to see the claim put to the test because it usually comes with some mumbling and claims that in five years we’ll all be fused with machines (an amazingly stable time horizon over the past few decades).

For all my skepticism, I'm basically fine with this existing, though I do wonder if and when Bitcoin/cryptocurrency systems using provably fair blockchain systems or similar tech will take it all to the next level, and remove more human bias.

I also think that when large money entities are involved, we should remain skeptical of data and expert judgment.

What do you think?

Addendum: Kevin Barrett walks through a connection between Rootclaim and Israeli intelligence. And no matter what you might think about any one nation or its intelligence agency, it should heighten skepticism. I've often said (most often with respect to the news) that the best way to sell a lie is to precede it by a hundred public truths. And it's going to be the most important news story that contains the lie.