01
Open
Contract design & wording
What makes a question resolvable?
Ambiguity is the dominant failure mode in event markets. This track catalogues wording patterns that survive contested outcomes, and the ones that reliably produce disputes.
Research & publications
The questions we think are worth getting right.
The Institute publishes working papers, method notes and design standards on prediction markets. This page is the standing agenda — what we are working on, how it is reviewed, and what has actually been published.
Flagship report
The resolvability of event contracts
Working title. It publishes when it clears internal review by fellows and outside readers, with any dissent published alongside it. Until then this page lists nothing — a research index padded with work that does not exist is worse than an empty one.
Publications
No papers have been published yet.
When a paper clears review it appears here with its named authors, its version and its full method — and with any dissent published alongside it.
Adversarial review memos
Faster than a paper, held to the same standard.
Real, current questions argued from more than one named perspective, drafted by the Institute itself and shown here while still draft — pending review, not yet a position.
Standing agenda
Six open tracks.
02
Open
Settlement & resolution governance
Who decides, and under what constraint?
Sources of truth, oracle and committee structures, appeal windows, halt criteria, and what a venue owes participants when the world refuses to be tidy.
03
Open
Market integrity
Which manipulations are structural?
Thin-book distortion, resolution-source attack, wash and cross patterns, and information advantage — separated into what surveillance can catch and what only design can prevent.
04
Open
Funding, margin & collateral
What breaks when the market never closes?
Funding-rate behaviour, index construction, collateral haircuts and liquidation cascades in perpetual and 24/7 venues, and their interaction with event risk.
05
Open
Measurement & calibration
How would we know if these prices were good?
Scoring rules, calibration measurement, sample-size thresholds and comparison methods — so that claims about forecast quality can be audited rather than asserted.
06
Open
Supervision & professional conduct
What does competent practice look like?
Client communication, conflicts, record-keeping, AI use and escalation for the professionals who sit between a novel contract and the person carrying its risk.
Review standard
The rules we hold ourselves to.
The Institute operates an internal review process staffed by its fellows and outside readers. It is not journal peer review and we do not describe it as such.
- 01Methods and data sources are stated before conclusions.
- 02Every claim is attributable to a named author and a version.
- 03Reviewers may dissent in print; dissents are published with the paper.
- 04Corrections are versioned, not silently edited.
- 05Work funded or informed by an interested party discloses that relationship.
Contribute