Let market creators set the size of the oracle bond

[maltekliemann]

Of course, there should be a required minimum. The size of the bond characterizes the oracle's commitment to the market. This solves the following problem: You create a market which would attract 100,000 ZTG liquidity, but the oracle bond is a couple of hundred ZTG. Relative to the size of the market, this does not make the market sufficiently resistant to bribery and other attacks. The higher the oracle's bond, the higher the confidence of the traders that the oracle will report correctly.

[Chralt98]

But then the oracle should provide the bond, not the market creator. If the market creator has the ability to set their own bond, it has a conflict of interest and the bond would be set to the minimum. I don't really get the point here. If the oracle fails to report, it is slashed and an outsider can report. So, you are basically saying that it benefits the market creator to not report and therefore extend the resolution time? Or what is the benefit of the oracle not reporting here? I mean we have a dispute mechanism here. It just delays the resolution, but why is that a problem?

[Chralt98]

We could also make a bidding system out of this report scheme. Just let everyone bid their report outcome and the highest bid in a certain time is the submitted report. Then we don't even need a dynamic or constant bond, we just let the market decide.

[maltekliemann]

Needs clarification and is part of the planned protocol simplification.