Over the long weekend a contentious Trueo market was resolved by a Jury vote. Only the second market to escalate that far. Honestly, something about the whole process was deeply satisfying. So I decided to write this post despite the market having relatively low volume. The contract was about whether Iran had attacked a shipping vessel in the Strait of Hormuz between Aug/23rd and Sept/1st. But as always with prediction markets, the devil is in the details. The criteria for a YES outcome required that two of the sources listed in the rules both confirm AND attribute an attack to Iran. During the week in question there was no doubt that vessels attempting to transit the strait were attacked in one way or another. There were several confirmed incidents, and even one which was later revealed to involve fatalities. The source of the contention wasn’t about confirmation of attacks, but rather it was about attribution. One side argued that the attacks weren’t definitively attributed to Iran, and instead only hinted at by the news outlets covering the incidents. This is where having a really robust dispute resolution system matters. The US gov and CENTCOM were actively denying Iranian attacks. They denied it because it’s in their political interest to avoid any negative press that can cause unrest in the Oil markets and undermine their messaging that the waterway is under their control. Events like this are particularly tricky because there’s a strong incentive to suppress the truth. This makes resolving outcomes for such events, which btw are of significant public interest, that much harder. Anyway, our AI resolution indicator agreed with a YES outcome, but the disputer asserted that the responses they received from various models did not concur with that result. Despite the fact that the majority of voting TRUE holders were in favor of the proposed YES outcome, the disputer held enough voting power to request a jury verdict. So our Attesters were called to action and had to manually review the market rules, query AI models independently, and submit a secret ballot which was only revealed once enough votes were tallied. In the end, the market finalized to YES. But it wasn’t without due process. The disputer also wasn’t slashed for any of their posted bonds because they had a legitimate argument. That last point matters a lot. If an oracle forces punishment for not succeeding in a dispute, then the oracle is effectively disincentivizing legitimate claims and the submission of supporting evidence. Things that are essential to truth seeking. Trueo’s greatest strength is its oracle which can resolve markets fairly and truthfully for virtually any event. Even ones that seem inconsequential. No dispute is unimportant on Trueo! Due process for all participants without exception. ps - If you want to dive further into the details, you can find the link to the market below with all the dispute semantics and arguments recorded in a single progression.