Talk:Futarchy

Reverted

I protest. After making extensive edits to flesh out this page, including adding links to the World Bank Blog and a legitimate Facebook group organized after Futarchy was named in the New York Times, the wikipedia bot undid all my work, not just the FB link. This is excessive and discourages me from trying to update this page again. The bot is overly aggressive. I won't be contributng to wikipedia in the future if an hour of work can be completely erased for no good reason without appeal or explanation.

The bots aren't smart enough to cut out only the facebook link. Parsing MediaWiki markup is fiendishly difficult; much easier to just revert.

As for an hour of work... you added 2 links and a sentence pointing out the obvious fact that it could be elected officials who implement the policies. Which is, I think, implied by the lead already.

As for the 'legitimate Facebook group' - don't care. WP:EL isn't a bad guide for this sort of thing, and it doesn't offer any more hope for a Facebook group than for a Myspace homepage for a band named Futarchy... --Gwern (contribs) 16:40 20 February 2009 (GMT)

reversion, again (not same guy as above)

HEya, I added a link to the futarchy_discuss yahoo group http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/futarchy_discuss/ , which XLinkBot helpfully deleted. Although it's a Yahoo group, it seems to be the most well fleshed out publically-accessible source of information about futarchy I've found. Also, the message archive is at least publically accessible without registration. Possibly the futarchy discussion here is original research, but I'm not actually putting its text into the article itself.

Can anyone help decide this issue?

124.107.146.23 (talk) 02:26, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

*shrug* nobody seems interested, so I just undid XLinkBot's edit. 124.107.146.23 (talk) 06:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Removed ELs

David Gerard (rightfully) removed some ELs. Some look generally unusable, but others might be able to be carefully re-introduced to this page. For that reason, here they are for future reference:

• Buterin, Vitalik (August 2014). "An Introduction to Futarchy". Etherium Blog. Retrieved 2020-12-26. (probably unusable)
• Quaggioto, Giulio (2008-04-18). "Futarchy: buzzword or viable option?". Private Sector Development Blog. World Bank. Retrieved 2012-02-20.
• Gelman, Andrew (November 21, 2005). "Questions about Futarchy". Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science (blog). Retrieved 2012-02-20.
• Varian, Hal R. (May 8, 2003). "A Market Approach to Politics". The New York Times.
• Hanson, Robin (August 2000). "Futarchy: Vote values, but bet beliefs". Retrieved 2012-02-20.

Jlevi (talk) 13:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit request: real-world implementation

Disclosure: I am affiliated with MetaDAO, one of the organizations mentioned in this request, so I am not editing the article directly per WP:COI.

The article currently describes futarchy as a theoretical proposal and discusses Ethereum-era ideas (Buterin's 2014 post, DAICOs), but does not note that the mechanism has since been used in practice. A peer-reviewed 2025 study in Frontiers in Blockchain discusses futarchy experimentation in deployed systems, including MetaDAO on the Solana blockchain. I'd like to suggest adding a short subsection (or sentences at the end of the history section):

Proposed text:

Since 2023, futarchy has been used as a live governance mechanism by MetaDAO, an organization on the Solana blockchain, where proposals are accepted or rejected according to the prices of conditional markets rather than by token-holder voting. A 2025 peer-reviewed study of futarchy in decentralized science noted that projects including Ethereum-based organizations and MetaDAO have begun experimenting with futarchy-informed decision-making, and examined design safeguards such as liquidity requirements intended to resist market manipulation.

The Frontiers in Blockchain article is peer-reviewed and independent of MetaDAO, which I believe satisfies WP:RS for a brief, factual mention. I recognize CoinDesk is listed as generally unreliable at WP:RSP; I've included it only as a supplementary citation for the launch date and mechanism description, and the text stands on the journal article alone if reviewers prefer to drop it. Happy to adjust wording, my only aim is that the article reflect that the mechanism has moved from proposal to practice. Thank you for reviewing. Chargebytes (talk) 17:51, 11 August 2026 (UTC) Chargebytes (talk) 17:51, 11 August 2026 (UTC)