The FairlyRandom group is used to enable FairlyRandom bot support. At market close (EOY 2023), will there be at least 300 markets in that group? (not counting unlisted markets or markets seemingly created to manipulate this market)
Link to group: https://manifold.markets/group/fairlyrandom
Please do not attempt to manipulate this market by creating spammy markets, adding or removing tags to markets unnecessarily, or similar actions. Please just let the tags be whatever they would be naturally. If I detect attempts at manipulation I reserve the right (but not obligation) to punish it by adjusting the resolution criteria of this market as I see fit (e.g. resolving N/A or adjusting the count to counterbalance the manipulation).
If it's not shown in the UI, you can check the number of markets in the group like so using the API:
$ curl -s https://manifold.markets/api/v0/group/fairlyrandom | jq ".totalContracts"
114(Note: query needs to be updated to exclude unlisted markets, I will fix that later)
Apr 23, 12:46pm: Will the FairlyRandom group contain at least 300 markets at the end of 2024? → Will the FairlyRandom group contain at least 300 markets at the end of 2023?
Related questions
🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ59 | |
| 2 | Ṁ19 | |
| 3 | Ṁ3 | |
| 4 | Ṁ3 |
It is very strange that https://manifold.markets/api/v0/group/fairlyrandom reports a "totalContracts" greater than the number of markets returned from https://manifold.markets/api/v0/group/by-id/J8Z1KAZV31icklA4tgJW/markets
@MichaelWheatley Good point -- since it's hard to tell which unlisted markets are "legit" or not without being able to query them, I'll exclude those from the count. I'll have to update that sample query above accordingly.
@A I have an estimate but the market is so readily manipulatable by someone writing a script to make a bunch of markets and adding them to the group in the eleventh hour as it were. If these were some metric for defining real markets as opposed to dummy markets this might be less manipulatable. such as markets with distinct resolution criteria, markets with some trade history, or something of that ilk.
@ShitakiIntaki Hmm okay, seeing as nobody has traded yet anyways, what do you think of the following proposed clarification.
If I don't suspect manipulation, the market resolves as originally described based on the raw count. If I do suspect manipulation, we'll get a list of "suspicious" markets (e.g. small number of unique traders, tag added right before close, etc.) and manually check which ones are real. In order for a suspicious market to prove itself as real, it needs to have a description that makes the FairlyRandom tag relevant and it needs to provably satisfy at least two of the following three criteria:
Significant number of real traders (not just alts or people artificially incentivized to participate).
Description is unique and not identical (or very similar) to another existing market.
Both the market creator and the person who added the tag do not have a position in this market (including derivatives, side deals, etc.)
I'd like to avoid specifying more precisely than that to avoid getting goodharted -- again I'm mainly relying on the honor system for people not to manipulate this intentionally. If it gets too contentious I reserve the right to tweak the criteria or just N/A it. I won't bet since it may be subjective.
@A I'll buy in with these guidelines. Still curious though why the group and the group markets don't reconcile. Actually I think it is because groups can pierce the veil of privacy for Private Markets.
What are your thoughts on discounting the private markets? The Market API wont return them, but the Group Summary page counts the private markets.
@A Unclear: does this mean taking a position in YES and making unique, good-faith markets in the group is discouraged? There's no guarantee that they'd draw significant numbers of traders
@Stralor It's fine to do that if they're really meaningfully unique and in good faith but please don't make spammy markets just for manipulation reasons. Mostly a judgement call I guess but I'll fall back to the objective-ish criteria stated above if it becomes controversial.