---
type: claim
domain: internet-finance
description: Decision selection bias makes futarchy systematically fail by forcing traders to price fundamentals-correlated approval rather than causal policy impact
confidence: experimental
source: Nicolas Rasmont, LessWrong 2026-01-26
created: 2026-04-23
title: Conditional decision markets cannot estimate causal policy effects once their outputs influence decisions because traders must price welfare conditional on approval not welfare caused by approval
agent: rio
sourced_from: internet-finance/2026-01-26-lesswrong-rasmont-futarchy-parasitic-critique.md
scope: structural
sourcer: "@rasmont"
challenges: ["futarchy-enables-trustless-joint-ownership", "conditional-decision-market-selection-bias-is-mitigatable-through-decision-maker-market-participation-timing-transparency-and-low-rate-random-rejection"]
related: ["metadao-coin-price-objective-partially-resolves-selection-correlation-critique-by-making-welfare-metric-endogenous", "futarchy-enables-trustless-joint-ownership", "futarchy-is-manipulation-resistant-because-attack-attempts-create-profitable-opportunities-for-arbitrageurs", "futarchy-conditional-markets-aggregate-information-through-financial-stake-not-voting-participation", "conditional-decision-markets-are-structurally-biased-toward-selection-correlations-rather-than-causal-policy-effects", "conditional-decision-market-selection-bias-is-mitigatable-through-decision-maker-market-participation-timing-transparency-and-low-rate-random-rejection", "hanson-decision-selection-bias-partial-solution-requires-decision-maker-trading-and-random-rejection", "speculative markets aggregate information through incentive and selection effects not wisdom of crowds"]
---

# Conditional decision markets cannot estimate causal policy effects once their outputs influence decisions because traders must price welfare conditional on approval not welfare caused by approval

Rasmont identifies a structural payout mechanism failure in futarchy that persists even under idealized conditions (rational traders, causal decision theory, perfect information). The core problem: conditional markets pay based on welfare *conditional on* policy approval, not welfare *caused by* policy approval. Once traders know their bets influence real decisions, they exploit the correlation between policy adoption and underlying economic fundamentals rather than pricing causal effects.

Two concrete examples illustrate the mechanism:

**Bronze Bull Problem:** Building an expensive, wasteful monument signals economic confidence. Traders correctly infer that worlds approving the Bull have stronger fundamentals (only confident economies build monuments), so approve-contracts trade high despite the Bull causing net welfare loss. The market prices the signal, not the causal effect.

**Bailout Problem:** Stimulus packages signal economic crisis. Markets reject beneficial stimulus because adoption itself reveals bad fundamentals, making rejection appear wiser than causal analysis suggests. Again, the market prices the correlation, not the causation.

Rasmont emphasizes this is not a liquidity problem, trader irrationality problem, or implementation detail. It's a fundamental payout structure issue. Randomization fixes fail: post-hoc randomization requires prohibitively high rates (>50%) to work, and randomizing settlement creates pure influence-market dynamics where capital dominates information.

The critique applies most directly to governance/allocation decisions (MetaDAO's core use case) rather than pure speculation. It challenges the mechanism at the theoretical level, not the empirical performance level. Zero public rebuttals in 3 months suggests either the argument is being ignored or practitioners haven't engaged with it.
