- https://court.kleros.io/cases/302
- https://omen.eth.link/#/0xffbc624070cb014420a6f7547fd05dfe635e2db2
- Kleros Case 302: Evidence
- The Question
- Key Points
- Interpreting the Data
- Evidence of Attempted Jury Manipulation
- Additional Considerations
- Closing Statements
Question: Will there be a day with at least 1000 reported Corona death in the US in the first 14 days of July?
Answer: Yes.
Link: Video Summary of Case 302.
Hello, I'm speaking to you today as a representative for the Ethereum user who requested arbitration for Kleros court case 302.
With data sourced from Johns Hopkins University, the website StatNews.com reported that Coronavirus deaths in the US reached or exceeded 1000 on two days during the given time period; first, on July 7th, at 1114 deaths, and second, on July 9th, at 1000 deaths. StatNews is a reputable source and was among the first to report on Coronavirus according to the New York Times. Omen Verified Market rules clearly indicate that no specific data source is required at the time of market creation, and the market in question was in fact accepted as "Valid" by the Omen Verified Markets TCR. Because Stat is a reputable data source, and because no data source was specified, reporting by StatNews fulfills the criteria for a "Yes" resolution. Furthermore, the Omen market asks us not how many deaths there were, but rather how many were "REPORTED". Thus, any reasonable interpretation of this question resolves to an answer of "Yes".
Remember: If the data fit, you must acquit. Vote "Yes" on Kleros court case 302.
With data sourced from Johns Hopkins University, the website StatNews.com reported that Coronavirus deaths in the US reached or exceeded 1000 on two days during the given time period; first, on July 7th, at 1114 deaths, and second, on July 9th, at 1000 deaths. StatNews is a reputable source and was among the first to report on Coronavirus according to the New York Times. Omen Verified Market rules clearly indicate that no specific data source is required at the time of market creation, and the market in question was in fact accepted as "Valid" by the Omen Verified Markets TCR. Because Stat is a reputable data source, and because no data source was specified by the market, reporting by StatNews fulfills the criteria for a "Yes" resolution. Furthermore, the Omen market asks us not how many deaths there were, but rather how many were "reported". Thus, any fair and impartial interpretation of this question resolves to an answer of Yes.
Stat was among the first to report on Coronavirus according to the New York Times. For convenience, images clearly demonstrating data matching the criteria for Yes are available here.
Stat, a digital publication in Boston founded in 2015, was early to a story that would dominate the news. In January, a month before the first confirmed case of unknown origin in the United States, the site published articles on the coronavirus’s ability to be spread by asymptomatic carriers; how it could test President Trump’s penchant for undermining established science; and the determination by experts that containing it “may not be feasible.”
In addition to the archived data above, this information can be verified by visiting StatNews.com's Covid-19 Tracker, changing the selection on the left to "United States" from "Worldwide", changing the "2 Week" reporting to "1 Day", and mousing over July 7 and July 9, 2020.
Additionally, 1Point3Acres indicates that there were 1005 Coronavirus deaths on July 1, 2020.
Link: Global COVID-19 Tracker & Interactive Charts - United States
“COVID-19/Coronavirus Real Time Updates With Credible Sources in US and Canada | 1Point3Acres”. coronavirus.1point3acres.com. Retrieved 18 July 2020.
Their website states:
We manually aggregate data from official government websites and latest news reports. Our volunteers fact-check and de-dup all the updates to bring accurate information. All cases have links to credible sources.
Ironically, as DAOTalk user sky notes, this source is among the original sources for one of the sources provided by the opposition's evidence (although the opposing evidence merely cites 'Google'):
What it comes down to is this data is all over the place. None of it matches actual deaths on a day (because this is impossible).
If you look at where Google gets its data, says Source: Wikipedia.
If you go there, says source: “COVID-19/Coronavirus Real Time Updates With Credible Sources in US and Canada | 1Point3Acres”. coronavirus.1point3acres.com. Retrieved 18 July 2020.
If you go there, the US Death graph shows 1,005 deaths for July 1st. (which then doesn’t show on the the Google graph).
- Link: Omen Market Rules PDF
- Link: Omen Verified Market Rules PDF
Interpreting the data as it pertains to this case requires an understanding of a few key concepts:
-
Not all data sources are credible or of high repute.
-
Credibility of sources—even of well-known sources—is often subjective, debatable, or otherwise open to interpretation. Furthermore, even reputable or otherwise well-known organizations sometimes produce erroneous reports.
-
Even a single credible data source which reports 1000 or more deaths on any day within the first 14 days of July fulfills the criteria for a Yes resolution on the Omen platform.
- According to Clément Lesaege, CTO of Kleros, the team behind the Omen prediction market platform explicitly wishes to avoid requiring market creators to specify a data source, as this would result in edge cases such as data sources failing to report, and other things which would inevitably lead to a large number of Invalid markets. The Omen team wants Omen markets to resolve Invalid as infrequently as possible, in stark contrast to platforms such as Augur, which had an endemic problem with Invalid markets. As stated by Clément Lesaege via the Omen Prediction Market Telegram:
Data source are not always better than no data source. If you put a data source, you introduce extra complexity in that the data source may not report or report wrong numbers even if it's obvious.
-
As such, ruling No in Kleros case 302 would set the precedent that any market without a data source specified would be completely open to creative interpretation in retrospect, a byproduct of which would be that malicious actors would be able to stack the odds in their favor by choosing options which are both contentious and which can likely be successfully challenged later if they lose, and users, having lost faith in the ability of the final step of the dispute resolution process, will be hesitant to use the Omen platform, which will then have rules which in practice actively incentivize this sort of contentious result.
-
The spirit of the law is a concept explicitly endorsed by the Omen team.
...the "spirit of a law" is the true meaning of the law which the creator wanted. This phrase is often used when the words and sentences of a law could mean more than one thing, but a judge must decide what meaning is correct.
In the context of the Omen prediction market platform, the spirit of the law is that markets are allowed (and usually are) created with no specified resolution source, and must specify all criteria in advance, with a few default assumptions as outlined in the rules. Thus, in the case of the Omen market in question, any credible source which reports deaths of 1000 or more by definition satisfies the criteria for Yes.
Why are two different "reputable" sources reporting different information?
Every source has its own methodology. You can't necessarily prove with absolute certainty that a specific number of people died on a certain day for things such as pandemics, which is why the market asks for 'reported' deaths, and why Omen as a platform supports markets without specific resolution sources. In reality, every source, regardless of how reputable that source may be, will produce its own number, and so there's some degree of variability regardless of which source or set of sources you choose to use.
User sky on DAOTalk echoed this sentiment in his post regarding 3Point1Acres:
None of it matches actual deaths on a day (because this is impossible). [...] If you go there, the US Death graph shows 1,005 deaths for July 1st.
In the Kleros Telegram group, user @pepthedon in weighed in on the methodologies presented by both parties, stating:
no = 'lets use method xyz according to abc'
yes = 'was it reported? (by a credible source)'
Thus, due to the phrasing of this Omen market, the rules of the platform, and the implications of data reporting with regard to pandemics, any credible source which reports deaths of 1000 or more by definition satisfies the criteria for Yes.
We turn to Kleros not because we need a necessarily obvious answer, but rather because we need a technical and impartial determination based on the facts and the context surrounding the case, as with any traditional court.
As a recent Kleros Blog article stated:
If the pandemic which is taking a toll on humanity is showing us anything these days, it's that our existing institutions are not equipped to handle the rising complexities of nature and society. In order for society to continue it's path, immediate adaptation is needed and there is no doubt that a post-COVID world will be more focused on online interactions.
As such, Kleros Jurors must consider that the data presented by the WHO is wildly inconsistent, even with other sources which otherwise support an opposing view, which is critical in determining how to rule on this case.
As Clément Lesaege, CTO of Kleros, commented via Telegram group:
For example, if WHO was chosen as a resolution, it would also create some unexpected results as WHO reports numbers significantly lower to other sources.
As user necronomicon on DAOTalk stated:
[...] the market [result] isn’t determined by the quantity of sources, and the quality of each source is debatable. The WHO, for example, is less consistent than both StatNews and the other sources provided, and it is being portrayed as an example of a source supporting the No position when in fact it undermines that position with data suggesting deaths very close (a statistically insignificant difference) to those reported by StatNews on at least one of the two occasions in which deaths were reported to meet or exceed 1000.
As an example of WHO's inconsistent data, consider that on July 7, 2020, a day during which Stat reported 1114 deaths, the WHO reported a figure of 235 Coronavirus-related deaths. This figure of 235 deaths is a statistically significant deviation from virtually all other sources, even those presented in the opposing evidence.
Furthermore, the WHO has made a number of blunders and controversial decisions with regard to Coronavirus reporting, many of them newsworthy. For example, in late March, the WHO reported with a tone of relative certainty that Coronavirus is not airborne, despite the fact that it was widely suspected to be airborne, and despite the fact that the tone of their reporting carried with it great risk. This information was included in a report here.
First published on 29 March 2020, updated on 9 July based on updated scientific evidence.
They were then forced to amend the report with information from a subsequent report in early–mid July:
Airborne transmission is defined as the spread of an infectious agent caused by the dissemination of droplet nuclei (aerosols) that remain infectious when suspended in air over long distances and time. Airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2 can occur during medical procedures that generate aerosols (“aerosol generating procedures”). WHO, together with the scientific community, has been actively discussing and evaluating whether SARS-CoV-2 may also spread through aerosols in the absence of aerosol generating procedures, particularly in indoor settings with poor ventilation.
The report goes on to explain other ways in which airborne transmission is in fact possible. Other sources also discuss the possibility of airborne transmission.
Right now, the opposing evidence is relying on the name recognition of sources like the World Health Organization in an attempt to appeal to authority and to dismiss sources which contradict their position. However, It is obvious from the above information that even seemingly reputable or well-known sources such as the WHO may produce inconsistent or outright false information.
- Based on a comment by DAOTalk user phaenon, the user who posted a 42 ETH bond in favor of a No verdict prior to arbitration has also created a prediction market based on the outcome of court case 302. This type of market is designed to influence Juror behavior in that Jurors stand to gain by either changing their votes in order to profit from the secondary market. Thus, any trading on this market, including the liquidity provided by its creator, is a direct and overt attempt to manipulate the vote. The account's activities are visible on 3box.
- The opposing evidence has thus far baselessly challenged StatNews as a source while simultaneously failing to acknowledge 3Point1Acres or any other potential source. Their goal is simply to add as many items as possible to their 'evidence' and to misrepresent the situation as a 'majority opinion vs. outlier' situation, when in reality it is quite nearly the reverse in some circumstances, as their own data contains a number of outliers (including the WHO), and even a single credible source reporting more than 1000 deaths on a single day for the given time period would satisfy the criteria for a Yes resolution regardless—meaning that the majority of the opposition's argument is simply out of scope for and irrelevant to this case.
- A large amount of apparent astroturfing is occurring across a variety of platforms. As a subtle and perhaps insidious example, Martin Köppelmann, a prominent member of the community, published a tweet comparing just part of our submission to the opposing party's full evidence document, with no link to our evidence document. He also repeatedly tweeted information ostensibly in favor of his position, retweeted nearly exclusively negative content against our position, and completely ignored evidence to the contrary; he has thus far promoted only sources which are ostensibly consistent with the opposing view, thus giving a totally false impression to any Juror who may view his posts. This extreme disingenuousness is not unique to Mr. Köppelmann, and it is a serious problem because of the following:
- Despite the fact that Kleros supports evidence submission natively, it is impossible to submit evidence directly to court.kleros.io due to the way Omen and realit.io have implemented Kleros. As such, we're mostly relegated to posting comments in the borderline defective 3box comment section on the Omen market platform. Not only does this comment section require a lot of overhead due to its decentralized nature, resulting in very slow loading times and inconsistent message display, but the messages there appear to have no real filtering mechanism, and so the comment section has simply been brigaded, or intentionally flooded by a vocal minority of users, in an effort to sway public opinion. This platform is already strained under the attention surrounding this case, and it makes matters worse that the opposition has chosen to flood it with redundant, disingenuous, and sometimes outright misleading information. While their goal is apparently to give the impression that the majority opinion is in favor of their position, a poll circulating on social media (accessed 22 July 2020, 20:30 UTC) appears to demonstrate the opposite, showing that those in favor of Yes outweigh those in favor of the sum of both alternatives at a 3:1 ratio. Regardless, in any traditional court of law, comments such as many of those on Omen's website would simply be deemed admissible as evidence. We respectfully request that the Jury focus on the formal evidence documents presented by both sides.
- Many existing and resolved markets follow the same pattern, providing no specific source, as allowed by the Omen rules. To fail to rule in favor of a Yes verdict would undermine the integrity of the Omen platform in that any contentious market could later be strategically disputed, weighting the odds of a profitable result to No, even if the objective answer is Yes. For the Omen prediction market platform to function as a source of truth:
- A single, reputable data source which meets the criteria for Yes must result in a market resolution of Yes under the current rules of the Omen platform. Impartial third parties cannot arbitrarily dismiss a data source in retrospect, nor can they in good conscience apply any arbitrary arithmetic or other creative interpretation to the available data in retrospect.
- This is the largest and most prominent case in Kleros history; it will set a precedent. It is thus critical to the Kleros platform for the Jury to rule fairly and coherently in accordance with the above information.
- The party requesting arbitration was not provided a platform to submit evidence before the Jury despite the fact that it is natively supported by kleros.io; this functionality exists but is simply not implemented. This represents a fundamental flaw on the part of the dispute process presented by Omen and realit.io and interferes with or entirely precludes the ability of the Jury to fairly consider all available evidence.
As DAOtalk user omenomicon noted:
This dispute is the result of two things: a lack of a source requirement on the part of the platform and a lack of familiarity with the subject matter on the part of those who took positions in the market.
And as DAOtalk user sky noted:
As to the question “Would the people who bet NO have bet NO if they were aware of the STAT reporting source on July 10th?!”
Much of the contention surrounding this Omen market is a result of a lack of awareness of Stat. Prediction markets by design must reward users who are most familiar with the subject and who do the most research; those who provide the most accurate information should be rewarded over those who do not, as this is what separates prediction markets from simple gambling.
- This market was accepted as Valid by the Omen Verified Markets TCR via Kleros Curate. Thus, traders took positions on the basis of the rules presented by both.
- Because no source was specified at the time of the market's creation, StatNews.com's reporting of 1114 deaths on July 7 fulfills the criteria of a Yes resolution.
- Additionally, StatNews.com's reporting of 1000 deaths on July 9 fulfills the criteria of a Yes resolution.
- Data from 1Point3Acres on July 1 indicating 1005 deaths also fulfill the criteria of a Yes resolution.
- Because the market specifies reported deaths, any credible reports, including StatNews.com's report of 1114 deaths on July 7, fulfill the criteria of a Yes resolution.
reported /rəˈpôrdəd/ adjective
- having been formally or officially announced or described. "an increase in reported crime"
Thus, any fair and impartial interpretation of this question resolves to an answer of Yes.