Proposal: Implement a third party voting system for insurance claims

Proposals Discussion
#1

Summary:

Although insurance providers are incentivized to vote coherently on valid insurance claims, as incohesive LP’s would drive insurees away from the system, I believe these incentives are not sufficient enough for LP’s to behave coherently.

Abstract:

Choose and implement a third party voting system such as Kleros Court for voting on insurance claims.
Kleros has already implemented a working decentralized court system, which has already showcased it’s effectiveness in prediction markets such as Omen.

Motivation:

In the current implementation, insurers would be incentivized to vote against any claims that are large enough to wipe out insurers’ funds, even if it would drive away insurees in the long run.
A third party system would have no, or minimal economic incentives to vote incoherently in their own financial interests.
By not relying on insurance providers or YFI governance voters for claims settlement, insurees confidence in the yinsurance system would be improved. This would most likely attract more users and be a net benefit for all parties.

Specification:

For: Implement a third party voting system for insurance claims.

Against: No changes from currently known yinsure specification.

Poll:

  • Implement a third party voting system.
  • No changes from original specification.

0 voters

Citations / Further reading:
Kleros yellowpaper: https://kleros.io/static/yellowpaper_en-28d8e155664f3f21578958a482f33bd1.pdf
Writeup on Case 302: https://medium.com/the-definancier/kleros-the-epistemic-engine-beyond-case-302-267b72bf5506

1 Like
#2

Hi,

I’m working on Kleros and this seems like an interesting insurance usecase.
If you want to go that road, we’d be happy to help on integrating.

We are already developing a claim management system for other partners so we could probably reuse some of the components.

6 Likes
#3

I like the idea. Also could use the insurance premiums to get more yield on it with a vault?

#4

I agree that LPs incentives are not well aligned with long term sustainability. YFI holders are most aligned with creating a sustainable insurance platform. It could be as simple as adding an appeal option if a claimant believes the LPs ruled incorrectly, then having YFI holders re vote.

5 Likes
#5

I agree, that at least an appeal option with third party jurors should be worthwhile.

#6

Anything that can expedite the insurance offering, and make the adjudication process more streamlined and fair is a great idea. There is a lot of money in the vaults and would be great to have an offering, as well as a process that gives LPs comfort in putting large $ into yearns products.

#7

I think this is a good alternative. It does add a minor complexity cost, though.

Also, it’s good to point out alternatives instead of just framing it as third-party vs LP voting. I think many people agree that the LP incentive structure isn’t enough, but it still seems open how to resolve it.

#8

Maybe an appeal mechanism with 3rd party arbitration.

#9

Please use the new msg signing voting system.

1 Like
#10

what type of claim can insurees made exactly? I can’t seem to find answer on this.

whether there is a third party that can take upon the responsibility to vote on whether the claim will be approved or rejected, I think it would depend on the variety types of claim that insurees may made

note: this is my first post, much about YFI I don’t know about about yet, I will make stupid comments, but I am interested to join in the discussion here.

2 Likes