ehird wrote:
> On 2009-03-24, Ed Murphy <emurph...@socal.rr.com> wrote:
>> coppro wrote:
>>
>>> You are not a party to the (currently non-contract) Vote Market II.
>> Oh, the perennial problem with the Vote Market was that most proposals
>> aren't controversial enough for anyone to bother buying votes. This
>> might be improved if more proposals were Ordinary; I should sit down
>> and propose de-Powering winning and related stuff.
>>
>
> Votes just aren't a good currency.
They might be, if it were easier to buy them. I had an idea for
amending the Vote Market to let parties vote "FOR x 2, AUTOBUY(^5)"
which would work something like:
Immediately before the end of a proposal's voting period, each party
who announced "AUTOBUY(X)" during its voting period (in the order the
announcements were made) fills Sell Tickets as follows:
a) The announcement's Option Set is the set of unfilled Sell Tickets
for the same proposal and currency (excluding those whose total
price exceeds X minus the total price of Sell Tickets already
filled due to the announcement), in increasing order of price per
vote, with ties broken in favor of earlier Sell Tickets.
b) While the announcement's Option Set is non-empty, the party fills
the first Sell Ticket in it.
