🏅 Top traders

201!

@GCS unexpected but excited factorial xD

1585202313 4032289121 4025006000 3691975213 2233151512 1825922243 2491821162 4944264407 1926981161 0864089094 0473961963 9922847404 8817862008 3877005811 7447251615 5188161538 0603431142 3426764716 7947777284 1156991178 4512291060 6916646903 7671308726 5508782372 7239223545 5130457273 8521493300 7054324127 3823513653 2691872618 0319633667 8071436448 3372318720 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 00000000 

201! is a lot of traders

If this gets bet down to 0, will anyone have incentive to join this market?

@oh people might have an incentive to buy YES if it gets so low. Which then gives other people the incentive to come in buying NO

@oh Even if it reaches 1-2%, people tend to bet 10k mana on No to guarantee themselves a quick and easy 100-200 free mana.

@ben Think you made right decision to cut your losses there @oh :)

@ben I’m irrationally stubborn, up to a point.

Quick reminder, bounty is created if you’d like to bet on it:

Added a bounty to encourage people to bet on it: https://manifold.markets/ben/bet-1m-on-the-linked-market-receive?r=YmVu

My spin on these kinda markets

https://manifold.markets/NoyaV/will-this-market-gain-100-participa

Another similar if you like these…

https://manifold.markets/MarcoGrosso/will-this-market-reach-250-traders?r=amJqb25hcw

Added a bounty to encourage people to bet on it: https://manifold.markets/ben/bet-1m-on-the-linked-market-receive?r=YmVu

@MrLuke255 @ZacheryHolmes @JimHays @NeilDabholkar Feel free to top it up to get enough participants and guarantee a win. @Primer

@Daniel_MC let's make this one happen - I'm boosting it!

You can also just phrase it as “less than 200”

@Traveel less or equal than 200.

Do accounts count that are new or created to manipulate this market? I. e. those which have been around a few days, just bet on this market, never left anywhere a comment or are against community guidelines

@Lion If there is significant influence (>= 5) accs that violate community guidelines, I'll try to delegate resolution to "Trustworthy" users. New accounts by real people are fine.

@AnT you could also create a "only users w/ accounts created before this market" provision, which would not really affect many legit users

@cloe Is it possible to check creation date of deleted user?

My spin-off:

If it includes bots, how do you plan to count?

@MrLuke255 I think it's possible by using "positions | profit" tab which (hopefully) includes those who sold shares immediately.

@AnT Looks like it’s exactly the same value as next to the closing date

This is a great market. I'm not a trader and my concepts may be confused here, but here's my best quick guess about what should happen:

Consider the market at 199 traders. If a trader stumbles across this market when the float of NO in the market is worth more than the transaction cost, then that trader should buy as much as they can (assuming perfect trust in the market judge, and that the market will resolve instantaneously on hitting 200).

So, consider the market with 198 traders. If a trader stumbles across this market at this point, they want to leave enough float for the 200th trade to be worth it, while of course making the maximum profit themselves.

So what "should" happen, I think, is that the very first trader should buy all the NO float minus 199 x (transaction cost + epsilon).

If the market happens to start off with not enough NO float, then instead the first trade should buy YES shares all the way up to 199 x (transaction cost) - epsilon, ensuring that it's not worth additional people trading while still getting the max profit.

Things might get more interesting if you start allowing creating new traders or calling your friends or something? Not sure.

(iiuc manifold doesn't actually have fees associated with trades for non-bots? So the question is whether it's worth people's time to bet NO)

@BenWeinsteinRaun Whoa. ELI5, please? ☺️

@oh Imagine that you're seeing this market and notice that there are exactly 200 traders so far. That means that, if you want, you can force the market to resolve to "NO": All you have to do is make a trade. Since you'd be forcing the market to resolve to "NO", you probably want to buy "NO", but only if the "float" (the number of NO shares you can buy) is high enough that, when they resolve in your favor, they'll cover any transaction costs required to make the trade.

So, if you happen to see the market when there have been 199 traders, you can bet NO (becoming the 200th) with relatively high confidence that someone else will be the 201st. So, you probably also want to bet NO (being sure to leave enough "float" that it can cover the transaction costs of the 201st person). So if you can make money relative to any transaction costs, you should bet NO too.

Since that's the behavior of the 200th person, if you happen to see the market when there have been 198 traders, you can bet NO (becoming the 201st) with relatively high confidence that someone else will be the 200th and 201st. So, you probably also want to beet NO (being sure to leave enough "float" that it can cover the transaction costs of the 200th and 201st people). So if you can make money relative to any transaction costs, you should be NO too.

And so on, such that the 1st person sees the same situation, except that they need to leave enough float to cover 200 people's transaction costs (plus a little bit extra as an incentive).

But if you're the 1st person and there isn't enough float in the market to cover all those transactions, you can still make money: Just buy enough "YES" shares that there still isn't enough float to cover the 200 transactions. Now, nobody has an incentive to buy any NO shares or YES shares, so the YES shares you bought will resolve in your favor.

@BenWeinsteinRaun Oh my goodness, thanks so much for taking the time to explain! I was not expecting that. What does that mean practically for me? Do you recommend I sell my position?