I'll resolve to YES if:
- the material is independently verified by a legit scientific institution (research lab)
- >2 independent verifications replications
- public consensus deems it's legit
- said material has a transition temp anywhere above 0°c
relevant twitter link: https://twitter.com/iris_IGB/status/1690309378933411840
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ960 | |
| 2 | Ṁ772 | |
| 3 | Ṁ723 | |
| 4 | Ṁ573 | |
| 5 | Ṁ354 |
People are also trading
@NKM the creator isn't active, but generally if not otherwise stated a market like this will resolve after its close date, in this case end of year.
@chrisjbillington Ahh, got it thank you! I remember seeing some chat in another market about resolving things earlier and I thought this would be a pretty uncontroversial candidate but I didn't check to see if the creator was still active.
@NKM You're not missing anything about the facts of the matter, only perhaps something about human stubbornness.
When would this resolve to NO?
Never mind, Jan 1st.
It's a weekend, so Iris Alexandra is working on superconductor again. https://twitter.com/iris_IGB/status/1697690391015793039
Any speculators of when Iris will provide an update, you may like this question:
When will @iris_IGB provide an update on "ZERO R TRANSITION DETECTED" | Manifold
@QuantumObserver I'll think on it then update to be more specific when I'm back at a PC, but it will likely be that I'll only resolve if point 2, 3 AND 4 are satisfied. My original intention was all 4, but I can see a world where iris doesn't share her original sample, but the material is legit and replicated - so I'll probably remove that point.
@jacksonpolack A great question and I'm glad you asked.
1. I am not very smart.
2. I did end up putting in a limit order.
I keep forgetting limit orders exist.
@1111111 Oh also is 'public consensus' like, Science Influencers on Twitter, or Actual Physicists on Twitter, or something else?
@QuantumObserver good question, I'm not sure how best to resolve the public consensus part. What is typical practice for this sort of resolution criteria? I see a few options, all with flaws:
- manifold poll (con: in people's interests here to manipulate the results)
- require replications to be published in a peer reviewed journal (con: this generally takes some time and might extend over the market's current close date, even if material is legit)
- vibes based resolution: I'll resolve if I deem the general consensus amongst experts is positive (con: it's vibes & I already hold a position in this market, not sure whether it's allowed to resolve a market I have stakes in based on my own vibes)
- I remove the public consensus criteria altogether (con: more likely to resolve to YES even if the material is bunk)
open to advice here!
@1111111 (hopefully goes without saying that the real question I want answered via the proxy criteria is "is material X really a superconductor")
@1111111 Yeah dude, I dunno. If you want a consensus, I think the best bet is some kind of expert consensus, especially if a lot of the condensed matter types go on record stating their belief that it is a superconductor.
Journals are pretty slow, and not likely to be meaningfully better filters than interested experts looking at the available evidence. Iris claimed they'll upload all data to Zenodo, so it should be easier to check for obvious fraud if that upload happens.