Disclaimer: We've used ChatGPT for grammatical corrections and formatting.

We totally understand the concerns raised from previous experiences with decentralized prediction markets. Let me address both examples and explain how PREDYX would handle them differently:

In the Polymarket example, confusion arose because there were conflicting sources of truth: "official statement" vs. "consensus of reporting." At PREDYX, we would avoid this by sticking to a single, clearly defined source of truth. For political events like elections, we would use one official source, such as the final certified results from the country’s electoral authority. This eliminates ambiguity and prevents scenarios where participants are confused by conflicting sources. If an event were difficult to verify or there were conflicting reports, we would consult trusted peer markets (e.g., Kalshi) and assess the best course of action.

In rare cases, if there's still too much uncertainty, we might cancel the market and refund users based on current share valuations to maintain trust.

In cases like Kennedy’s partial withdrawal, the phrasing of the market question is crucial. At PREDYX, we ensure that questions are framed in a way that can be objectively verified with clear criteria. In this case, the market could be phrased as “Will Kennedy completely drop out of the race?” with specific terms around what "withdrawal" means (e.g., removal from ballots in all states or an official public declaration of a full withdrawal). This removes the ambiguity and provides clarity, so the market can be fairly resolved.

To further demonstrate how we handle clear resolution criteria, consider this example:

Resolution Criteria:
The market will resolve to "Yes" if Donald J. Trump is officially declared the winner of the 2024 U.S. Presidential Election, certified by Congress based on the U.S. Electoral College results. The official verification will come from the U.S. Federal Election Commission (FEC). If Trump is not declared the winner by the FEC, the market will resolve to "No."

This approach guarantees that only one official source—in this case, the FEC—is used to verify the outcome, minimizing confusion and manipulation attempts.

We understand the importance of trust and transparency in prediction markets, and that’s why we’ve designed PREDYX to avoid these pitfalls:

By being precise with market phrasing and sticking to verifiable events, we aim to make PREDYX a reliable and trustworthy platform. We're also building a system that discourages manipulation by providing well-defined rules from the start.

Hope this has answered some of your concerns, please share your advice if you think there are better ways of handling such situations.

Very interested in the answers to these two examples, too. I don't think there will be reassuring answers, but who knows :)