Because money is at risk, this forces these voters to report honestly. If this sounds like proof-of-stake, it essentially is an early version of it. And that's probably why it never received broad appeal within the Bitcoin community.

rolls eyes

I hate when people just dismiss things

I think proof of stake is indeed a potential solution to the oracle problem

In fact, Hanson advised a prior company that tried to replace focus groups with prediction markets.

How would this look like in practice?

No CEO would adopt a prediction market that asks if he should be replaced.

Sounds like there's a conflation between prediction markets and voting? Or maybe I'm just misunderstanding something.

IMO the problem with prediction markets is the incentive to participate. I'd have to have some inside information to get a net positive return; game theory then suggests that the only people participating are those with inside information, which erodes my advantage. I just don't see enough people willing to risk their hard-earned bitcoin on a zero-sum activity like this.