Hub and spoke bet

[wongway]

This needs a better name for the bet type.

Updated flow:

1. Hub submits bet to API with bet title and binary outcomes
2. Commissioner sets up bet and adds group members
3. Hub adds max amount they are willing to lose (payable action)
4. Commissioner informs spokes of bet availability
5. Spokes place bets against hub unless there aren't any funds left (payable action)

Old proposed flow for using this bet type:

1. Hub submits bet to API without setting value parameters
2. Commissioner sets up bet and adds group members
3. Spokes see bet, are invited to propose an amount to bet
4. Spoke proposes an amount to bet, no currency transferred yet
5. Hub accepts or rejects proposal: acceptance triggers currency transfers from bettors to contract

[sbwildflowers]

A few thoughts &/ questions:

• In step 2, does the Commissioner manually add members? I was thinking just all members get notified/can participate based on belonging to the group where the bet is created.
• In step 4, can the Spoke propose an amount to any other member of the group, or just to the Commissioner? If it's only Commissioner, there is a probably a concept of "Action" that should be added to the bet setup process where Action = total amount Commissioner is willing to wager.
• In my opinion the main back-and-forth between the bettors will be over odds. Possibly belongs to a future iteration, but having all payouts be 50/50 feels like a big hinderance to real use.

[wongway]

• Sorry, the Commissioner refers to the administrator of the smart contract, which will be our infrastructure/backend.
• Interesting thought about how to deal with how much the hub is willing to bet. It's a little different than what we initially talked about, but it does simplify the interactions greatly. Thoughts @adhurjaty?
• Good point about odds. I think for the first PoC, we'll assume 50/50, just to get something out there.

[adhurjaty]

I think we should make this the simplest usable betting scheme for now. Tony's proposal seems like the simplest way to do things. We can tweak things once we are able to reliably publish a smart contract. I really do like the idea of the hub setting a cap on the amount he's willing to lose and the idea of non-50/50 bets. I imagine those will be relatively straight-forward to implement, but it does add extra complexity

[sbwildflowers]

Apparently creating domain definitions doesn't not prevent one from misreading said domain definitions haha. I'm on the same page now.