[extropy-chat] Re: Why bet only imaginary money?

[Brett Paatsch]

Alejandro Dubrovsky wrote:

> > > Hasn't foresight been running an IFX (Robin's original) with real
money
> > > for about a decade now? (i could be mistaken in at least three counts
on
> > > that sentence though)
> >
> > Last I looked between 18 months and 6 months ago (when both Hal and
> > Harvey were posting here about it), then I checked and the money bid
> > wasn't real.
> >
> I didn't mean the public www.ideosphere.com, but a private version run
> for Senior Associates only.

That's the one I'd seen.

>  I am sure that i was sure at some point
> that it existed, but i can't find links to it anywhere, although i've
> found enough hints in old (but not very old (sept 2001) foresight update
> issues not to force me to accept it was completely a figment of my
> imagination yet.

> Of course, this isn't much good to you, but you could check with the
> foresight institute.

Wouldn't that be a bit like going to the Catholic church, saying I'm an
atheist and asking for a list of members that want to bet with me on the
existence of  god?

If the majority of scientifically literate investors are not bullish on say
molecular nanotechnology, and they are in fact wrong in not being
bullish, then shouldn't their error be seen as all the greater opportunity
to get more easy money by those who are sure molecular nanotech is
going to work?

Having a closed market would seem to be exactly the opposite to the
optimal strategy for getting funds to those who already agree with
foresight and for persuading sceptics.

Say Smalley bet with Drexler and lost - that would be almost priceless
publicity for Drexler and Foresight wouldn't it?  If Drexler won, Smalley
would not only have to pay him, he'd have to change his mind.

Or am I missing something?

Brett