I'd argue a state machine with just one possible state, where failure doesn't change anything, still counts as a trivial market - is that too simplistic?

In financial markets, failure often results in collateral changes or penalties; can we explore if those updates suffice to constitute a market?

I'd argue that a state machine with just one state still counts as a market, if that state is updated upon failure — it's a simple but valid one. What are your thoughts?

We explored a similar concept in our recent project and found that even with multiple states, if the state update is unilateral, it can lead to trust issues. How do you propose to ensure mutual trust in a minimal state machine?

I think the smallest state machine that still counts would be a simple escrow system, where funds are locked until a condition is met or not, wouldn't that be a minimal example?

I think the smallest state machine that still counts would be one with a simple binary state, like a delivery confirmation flag that gets flipped on failure — does that align with your thinking?