This market resolves as YES if someone has >= 5k NO shares
117
282
2K
resolved Apr 22
Resolved
YES

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)

Get Ṁ1,000 play money

🏅 Top traders

#NameTotal profit
1Ṁ5,357
2Ṁ1,483
3Ṁ1,257
4Ṁ640
5Ṁ138
Sort by:
predicted YES

I enjoyed this market and the game theory tactics involved in it. Re-creating it 4 months later

predicted YES

@8 can you resolve? My entire portfolio is tied up 😂

predicted NO

All the drama and negotiation for naught 😂

predicted YES

@FedorBeets Oh it closed. ahh

predicted YES

@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

bought Ṁ0 of YES

Alright, so who's gonna bribe the NO holders to sell out?

predicted NO

everyone with over 5k NOs, name ur prices

bought Ṁ500 of YES

@VictorLi i think the bribers should declare a starting price and then the NO holders can decide how much they want off that anchor

predicted YES

@VictorLi also i see 4 people at 4999 and another above 4900 NO shares. what about them

predicted YES

@firstuserhere and the bribe would be to everyone who holds NO above 5k or could hold NO above 5k

bought Ṁ100 of NO
bought Ṁ1,000 of YES

@RonWiener lovely!

predicted NO

@firstuserhere i will hold over 5k if u can give me 1k

bought Ṁ500 of YES

@VictorLi I've got an offer for half of that

bought Ṁ110 of NO

@VictorLi someone needs to give me 1000 mana/profit and ill get out of the market

predicted NO

@VictorLi About 350

predicted YES

Created a variant of this market:

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 @Odoacre @jack @Gen @firstuserhere what do u guys think

@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)

predicted NO

@Char Funner is better, reject meth and embrace chaos

predicted NO

@Gen Reject math*, meth too I guess

@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.

predicted YES

@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.

predicted YES

There's no need to borrow from a whale when there's already plenty of whales in this market.

@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

@jack and any of those whales could've been W in this scenario.