ORAO's reputation system is designed to produce a gradient. That is to say, it doesn't simply lump data providers into 'good' and'bad'/untrustworthy. Our neural nets judge providers on things like the freshness of data being streamed, meaning if one data provider has significantly higher ping than others, thier score will end up slightly lower because the data they provide is not as optimal as it could be.
Of course, for the vast majority of buyers receiving data that is two seconds out of date is not going to be an issue, especially not when block time is taken into account, or if the data requested is not time sensitive. The outcome of a completed hockey match is not going to change.
For some buyers, however, tiny differences may well matter. With this spread of needs in mind, ORAO's reputation system allows data buyers to set thresholds for what minimum scores providers must meet to take on their requests. At the same time the network is set up to match buyers with the cheapest data providers who match their criteria. As a result, a market is created where the highest quality data providers are able to charge more for their services, while less optimized providers are still able to compete for buyers who are not willing to pay higher premiums.
Unlike some oracle networks, on Orao data providers with larger stakes do not receive an unfair boost to their reputation through the stake they have, instead suggested providers within each tier are sorted by their stake - larger stake, more visibility. We believe this to be the optimal compromise between incentivizing large stakers to keep their whole stake and protecting smaller network participants from wealthy holders controlling the network. No amount of higher staking will raise your reputation if a smaller staker is providing better data than you, however an incentive does exist to keep your stake in the form of greater visibility within each tier.