But if there is no reason to think that problem is worse in this proposal, and the info aggregation problem would get better, you might still want to support this proposal.
If the information that would need to be aggregated doesn't exist, then the "info aggregation problem" as you've defined it doesn't exist either, so it's meaningless to ask whether it gets "better".
As for the problem of imposing policies on everyone, doing it by a mechanical procedure based on a betting market actually does strike me as worse than doing it the way we do it now, for a couple of reasons. But I'll respond further to that in the other subthread where we are having that discussion.
