April 26th can resolve @AmmonLam

Apr 25th can resolve @AmmonLam

Last four days can resolve @AmmonLam

Nonetheless, seems like Apr 12 resolves YES.

Well that's unexpected. Who's betting yes there anyway lol

@JureSmolar

Who's betting yes there

I mean the superconductor market. The paper matches every superconductor swindle to date.

@JureSmolar I know. Maybe I'm getting old and people didn't watch the same cartoons as I did. Anyway the same person is betting YES on LK-99 as who always bets YES on LK-99.

@chrisjbillington Ahh that’s how you meant it. I’m a 2000 kid so I only vaguely remember that evil genius mouse dude 😅

Not sure if you intended for the market to close for betting btw, guessing that stayed from the march questions

The first 50k limit order from yesterday is still up. The sums are increasing. Resolves YES.

Actually didn't even notice it's still 5am there lol. Pardon for one more hour, though I doubt they'll be all filled any time today.

For proper resolution.

Surprisingly a lot of yes betting has happened since yesterday. Still healthily resolves YES today, even with just jason's limit order.

More than 20k of the same limit orders still up, many more have been added that are also over 6h now, so this will take a few days at least to get through unless some YES whale shows up.

Tthe same limit orders are still up.

Same limit orders as yesterday are still up, already 6 hours into the day.

Apr 6 already has 6 hours of surviving limit orders

Just a ping to check before resolving. I attached res criteria under the Apr 4 thread.

Apr 4 resolves YES. Your own holding exceeds 6 hours. Attached the ET timestamp for reference to my local time.

@JureSmolar oops... didnt read your comment before resolving Apr 4. I've asked for mod help in unresolving this

@AmmonLam I trust it will be resolved well. Attached is the status for today; Chris' orders have now stayed up for 6 hours, all falling within Apr 5 in ET, which should thus resolve YES.

@JureSmolar resolved Apr 4 back to yes

Just so I understand correctly, as long as e.g. Jason holds at least one of his 33,333 no bets this would resolve as yes at least until he sells? Or does the market also need to be 3% or less? The title uses strict inequality (will [...] be below?) while the description is ambiguous in the sense that "will stay at or below" can mean either: resolves yes if it's either, or that it disambiguates between the two, i.e. no if it stays at, yes if it goes below.

To make the example even more extreme, if I put in a no limit 20000M bet, and the market rose to, say, 6%, would this still resolve yes as long as I don't sell?

@JureSmolar
"Resolves Yes if there are over 20000Mana of 4% no limit orders on the market that stayed up for over 6 hours in the day (ET time)"

@AmmonLam ah, I was reading “no limit order” as non-limit order, but you mean a limit order of NO. All clear now.

@JureSmolar added hyphen and capitalized NO for clarity

@JureSmolar for example, Apr 3 resolves Yes since the 20000Mana of 4% NO-limit-orders stayed up for 6 hours already

@AmmonLam Clear now. Thank you.