Futarchy is a form of government proposed by economist Robin Hanson, in which elected officials define measures of national wellbeing, and prediction markets are used to determine which policies will have the most positive effect.[1][2] It was named by The New York Times as a buzzword of 2008.[3] The idea has been subsequently expanded to explore its potential in the context of blockchains and the decentralized autonomous organization (DAO).[4] The term "futarchy" is a portmanteau of "future" and "anarchy," reflecting its use of market predictions to guide decision-making without traditional hierarchical authority.
History
editThe concept of futarchy builds on earlier ideas in prediction markets and decision-making. Robin Hanson first explored related concepts in his 1999 paper "Decision Markets," which proposed using speculative markets to estimate the consequences of policy decisions, such as the impact of concealed carry laws on murder rates.[5] In 2000, Hanson formalized futarchy in "Futarchy: Vote Values, But Bet Beliefs," introducing the slogan "vote on values, bet on beliefs" and outlining a system where democracy defines welfare metrics, but markets select policies to maximize them.[6] Hanson refined the idea in his 2013 paper "Shall We Vote on Values, But Bet on Beliefs?," addressing criticisms and proposing mechanisms like conditional markets and welfare measurements.[7] The concept gained attention in blockchain contexts with Vitalik Buterin's 2014 blog post "An Introduction to Futarchy," which explored its application to decentralized governance in Ethereum-based DAOs.[8] Buterin also discussed related ideas in his 2018 post on DAICOs, blending ICOs with DAO governance elements.[9]
Mechanisms
editIn futarchy, values are determined democratically (e.g., via elections defining a welfare metric like augmented GDP), while beliefs about policy outcomes are aggregated through prediction markets. Conditional assets pay based on outcomes tied to whether a policy is adopted, allowing markets to estimate expected welfare. Proposals pass if markets predict higher welfare. Refinements include statistical models for price significance, agenda auctions, and veto mechanisms to handle future welfare definitions.
Criticism
editEconomist Tyler Cowen has argued that "values and beliefs" cannot be easily separated: "I would bet against the future of futarchy, or its likelihood of succeeding were it in place."[10] Other critiques include risks of market manipulation, thin liquidity, and challenges in defining comprehensive welfare metrics.
See also
editReferences
edit- ^ Hanson, Robin (2007). Shall we vote on values, but bet on beliefs?. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.71.8309.
- ^ Hanson, Robin (2013). "Shall We Vote on Values, But Bet on Beliefs?" (PDF). Journal of Political Philosophy. 21 (2): 151–178. doi:10.1111/jopp.12008.
- ^ Leibovich, Mark; Barrett, Grant (2008-12-21). "The Buzzwords of 2008". Week in Review. The New York Times. Retrieved 2010-07-23.
- ^ Rennie, Ellie; Potts, Jason. "The DAO: a radical experiment that could be the future of decentralised governance". The Conversation. Retrieved 26 December 2020.
- ^ Hanson, Robin (1999). "Decision Markets" (PDF). IEEE Intelligent Systems. 14 (3): 16–19.
- ^ Hanson, Robin (2000). "Futarchy: Vote Values, But Bet Beliefs" (PDF). Retrieved 2025-11-23.
- ^ Hanson, Robin (2013). "Shall We Vote on Values, But Bet on Beliefs?" (PDF). Journal of Political Philosophy. 21 (2): 151–178. doi:10.1111/jopp.12008.
- ^ Buterin, Vitalik (2014-08-21). "An Introduction to Futarchy". Ethereum Blog. Retrieved 2025-11-23.
- ^ Buterin, Vitalik (2018). "Explanation of DAICOs". ethresear.ch. Retrieved 2025-11-23.
- ^ Cowen, Tyler (2007-08-04). "Where do I disagree with Robin Hanson?". Marginal Revolution. Retrieved 2010-07-23.
External links
edit- Hanson, Robin (August 2000). "Futarchy: Vote values, but bet beliefs". Retrieved 2012-02-20.
- Buterin, Vitalik (August 2014). "An Introduction to Futarchy". Ethereum Blog. Retrieved 2020-12-26.
