I had proposed that each contract could choose a different feed instead of a consensus feed (e.g. schellingcoin); however, these feeds will cause consensus verification (e.g. mining) nodes to incur a resource cost (to access the external feed). So there would need to be some standardization of choices of feeds, centralization of propagation of the feeds into the network, and the cost the parties need to pay for this. Again this is yet another evidence that decentralized consensus is a lie and further reinforces the point of my OP about true decentralization.
In other words, I am saying we are probably doing everything wrong. Throw away PoW, PoS, and all that (but my proposal doesn't prevent their participation and they are welcome to attempt to prove me wrong in the market place).
Note I corrected the answer on a Google IQ test in which the correct answer I provided is in its generative essence the same logic as Schelling points:
http://unheresy.com/Essence%20of%20Genius.htmlYou're the captain of a pirate ship...The answer given above is incorrect. If you offer all the booty to 51% of the crew, one of them might get motivated to vote against your proposal because they have nothing to lose if your proposal wins (and they might want to try their luck at another proposal that offers them more). Contemplate that deeply! Whereas, the correct answer is to propose that anyone who votes NO will not share in the booty. TADA!