Frequently asked questions
The future supply-demand imbalance of RHU can be extremely favorable to RHU holders. Unlike many coins, the value won't rely on speculative pressure to appreciate, and demand growth can continue for decades. It's also not dependent on a project getting completed or an unproven business model: we have existing platform uses from Day 1 and near-term applications that will create immediate and accelerating demand drivers.
Poll Verdicts create competition within large groups of voters to source consensus that can then be used to resolve a dispute, support a claim or policy, or answer a technical or legal question. Group members pay RHU to participate because the ROIs can be amazing: 30% - 300% in a few days, in some cases. Initial total RHU deposits are paid out to the consensus group while the non-consensus groups forfeit their deposits. For example, if it were a 60/40 split, the 60% consensus group would receive their original deposit plus an amount in profit from the forfeiting side. The initiator of the Poll Verdict doesn’t care about the internal profits of the participants—just that they reached a consensus on the terms or options that the initiator asked them to debate and vote on.
Participants need to fund their deposit in RHU, which means they must purchase RHU to join any Poll Verdict. If they lose, they must purchase more RHU if they want to participate in a new Poll Verdict. Generally, there's no limit on the number of participants in any Poll Verdict because the initiator isn't paying them; they're competing against each other for consensus. So even a very small case—e.g., a farmer’s dispute in Pakistan, could have thousands of participants competing to find consensus on the best resolution to the dispute. At any given time, we expect to have thousands of Poll Verdicts in progress with hundreds of thousands of participants—all requiring RHU to participate. Our goal is to turn the world into a “jury pool,” helping render settlement decisions and other outcomes on cases anywhere on the planet. This will create better and more democratic access to justice while multiplying demand for the RHU exponentially.
No. Participants can change their votes up to the deadline, but they don’t know which option is ahead or by how much.
Yes, they can discuss and debate the merits of the options submitted for vote until the final vote is due. They can also ask questions or try to convince the disputants to settle under the options they intend to vote for—thereby creating a higher potential ROI because the winning option might have fewer voters to share the entire bounty pool.
Either party can initiate a Poll Verdict unilaterally to try to convince the other side (or the courts, or the public) of their claim’s merits and the resolution they're seeking. However, if both sides choose, they can apply an arbitrative approach and agree to be bound by the Poll Verdict, with settlement taking place automatically on the RHU token. This creates certainty of resolution because the verdict is the final resolution and terms are executed. This has enormous applications in merchant-to-consumer arbitration because it’s a) fast, b) free, and c) more democratic: the public is making the decision, not an industry-biased arbitration panel.
Yes, Poll Verdicts can also be a valuable tool in non-binding mediation because they reflect informed consensus from the public or subgroups of domain experts. For example, if a Poll Verdict of dentists renders a high consensus on a malpractice claim, it sends a strong message to the parties about how the dispute should be settled and appropriate compensation. A Poll Verdict can also project how a jury or judge might rule if the case were to go to trial so the parties can negotiate accordingly.
In most cases the fairest resolution will be the one that earns consensus. For example, if the dispute is over an insurance claim and the initiator has chosen a sub-group of insurance lawyers and insiders to vote, they're unlikely to vote against the solutions that are most common in practice. However, we also employ a wild card in that the disputants at any time can settle their case after reviewing the Poll Network's commentary on the case. If they settle, the RHU deposit goes to the group that’s already voted for the option that the disputants settled under. Therefore, voting for what you think might get the most votes could result in forfeiture if the disputants agree to a different, presumably more equitable, solution.