I'm not going to, as Robin requests, recast my argument yet again. I've done so, in one way or another, seven times already. I invite the reader to peruse the arguments in question.

• First time I put it together. Starting at "in combination with insider trading, this could potentially be a problem"
• Recap in 2007
• In terms of Robin's own model
• As a short recipe. Starting at top.
• As a detailed recipe, same email. Starting at "Here's a version with more detail"
• Described the problem abstractly and concisely. Starting at top.
• Pitched a common sense argument, same email. Starting at "Well, why would it be?"

Robin only deigned to address one, and his response simply assumed his conclusion. Seven times, effectively zero responses. I no longer expect better.

Second, Robin's basically asking me to do more free work on his terms to diagnose and fix his idea. Been there, done that, didn't like the response I got.

Thirdly, the form that he asked that it be cast into misses the point anyways. What he asks for is suited to finding equilibria, not for talking about security holes. It's as if I pointed out, in regard to a poker game, that a player could substitute a marked deck, and he answered that he would only listen if I rewrite my argument in a form suited for talking about the players' best bluffing strategy.

I'd still like to discuss the futarchy idea, but unfortunately I'm now soured on discussing it with its creator.

I created a Yahoo group for discussing it. Anyone interested in the idea is invited to visit it. You're even invited to tell me where I'm wrong, if it so happens that I am. But give solid reasons and a rebuttal that understands the argument being made. I've already heard circular reasoning and an invincible blind spot.