b e n e v o l e n c e
also, resolves NO if the conditions are not met
(clarification: at the time of close)
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ5,357 | |
| 2 | Ṁ1,483 | |
| 3 | Ṁ1,257 | |
| 4 | Ṁ640 | |
| 5 | Ṁ138 |
People are also trading
@firstuserhere I had planned to buy tons of YES at the end to reach maybe 100k for the first time ever and to get free 3 or 2% profit
@VictorLi i think the bribers should declare a starting price and then the NO holders can decide how much they want off that anchor
@VictorLi also i see 4 people at 4999 and another above 4900 NO shares. what about them
@firstuserhere and the bribe would be to everyone who holds NO above 5k or could hold NO above 5k
I have a theory 😂
Assume there is a rich manifold user. They have tons of mana. Let's call then W for Whale.
W loans (let's say) 20K mana to person A, at a 2.5% interest rate. W loans (let's say) 1k mana to a person B, at a 3% interest rate. Both loans resolve at the same time.
Both persons A and B invest on this market. Person A spends 20k to buy YES and drive price of no shares to pennies. Person B buys up those NO shares. Person A keeps buying up YES shares and person B stops buying NO shares.
If the market resolves YES, person A makes 7% profit. Now, A pays W the 2.5% profit agreed upon, as well as pays B 2% of the winnings, and keeps the remaining 2.5% profit. The 2% of winnings of A given to B are more than enough to cover the 3% interest rate on the loan of B.
A, B, W go home happy.
@Char Here is an example visualization of how all 3 of A, B and W can profit, with definite numbers.
W pays A 20k, and at 2.5% interest, gets back 20500. W makes profit. Yay.
W pays B 200 and gets back 206. W makes profit. Yay.
Separately, A makes a 7% profit (guaranteed by B losing their 200).
A now has 21400. A pays W 20500 back. A now has 900 left. A pays B 250 to complete their side deal. A has now 900-250 = 650 left.
B pays 206 back to W to complete the loan. B has 44 left.
W makes 506 mana.
B makes 44 mana.
A makes 650 mana.
The tuple {A, B, W} all end up winning.
Depending on whether you are A, B, or W, you can optimize the interest rates and amounts of mana to make as much as possible but since all 3 of them are literally making profit, it's easy to negotiate, as it is not a 0 sum game. all 3 of them win.
@Char (also imagine W also invests in the market to make guaranteed profit. That way, W makes even more mana by ensuring YES resolution. And the profits of A and B also go up)
@Gen lol. Yeah. My theory is just showing why it is going to resolve YES no matter what if there is a whale (W) who would like to get a lot of profit. That w isn't going to be the highest position holder, but still hold YES
@Char All discussion so far has been focused on just @firstuserhere holding YES and @UncleMax holding NO, when in reality, both of them make profit using someone else's mana, and that someone else also makes mana. Win-win-win.
@Char Your idea would work, but adding the whale isn't necessary and doesn't necessarily improve the strategy. Any concern about the NO holder backstabbing still applies in this scenario.
@jack Yeah it is a hypothesis, and can be falsified by evidence against. I'm just saying there is incentive for not doing backstabbing when it's not your own mana you're losing