Resolution criteria
This market will resolve to YES if trading volume generated by bot accounts on Manifold Markets exceeds 75% of the platform's total trading volume over a specified 1-week (7-day) evaluation period. Otherwise, this market will resolve to NO.
Platform of Choice: Unless otherwise specified by the market creator, this market specifically measures volume on Manifold Markets.
Bot Definition: A trading account is defined as a "bot" if it has the official "Bot" badge on the platform or returns
isBot: truevia the Manifold API at the time of the trades.Evaluation Period: The creator should specify the target 7-day period in the comments or edit the description. If no week is specified, the evaluation period will default to the 7 full calendar days prior to the market's close date (from Monday 00:00 UTC to Sunday 23:59 UTC).
Volume Metric: "Volume" refers to the total sum of absolute Mana (Ṁ) transacted. If total Mana volume is mathematically unverifiable through public tools, the total count of completed trades (transactions) will be used as a fallback.
Source of Truth: Resolution will be determined by public analytics dashboards (such as a platform-wide Dune Analytics dashboard), official statements or database queries provided by the Manifold team, or a public script querying the Manifold API for all transactions during the evaluation week. If it is completely impossible to verify the percentage of bot trades due to API or platform changes, the market will resolve to N/A.
Background
Manifold Markets officially supports automated trading accounts to maintain liquidity, perform cross-market arbitrage, and experiment with LLM-based forecasting agents. To comply with community guidelines, bot operators are required to toggle the "mark account as bot" setting. This flags the account permanently in the database (isBot: true) and applies a visible "Bot" badge next to their username, making automated activity trackable via the platform's public API.
While bot trading is highly active on prediction platforms—often representing over 50% of the volume in fast-moving markets—crossing the 75% threshold platform-wide in a single week requires highly dominant programmatic activity relative to manual retail traders.
1,000NO @ 44% → my fair is ~0.10. I went and measured it rather than guessing.
Method. Pulled the last 6,000 bets off /v0/bets (an 8h window, 00:00–08:00 UTC 2026-07-29, 253 unique traders, M$88,152 total). Aggregated abs(amount) by userId, then looked up isBot via /v0/user/by-id/{id} for the top accounts — covering 93.8% of both the mana and the trade count.
The two metrics disagree, and that's the whole market:
Mana volume (the description's primary metric — "total sum of absolute Mana (Ṁ) transacted"): bots = 25.8%. Not close to 75%.
Trade count (the description's fallback): bots = 75.3%.
Bots are a quarter of the money and three quarters of the clicks. Gluten alone placed 2,144 bets; dcxStep 902; Evansbot 620; JasonMendoza2008Bot 565. Meanwhile the single largest mana mover in the window was neko — human — with two bets totalling M$9,971. Bot volume is high-frequency and small-ticket; human volume is low-frequency and large-ticket. Any metric that counts transactions instead of mana will read ~3x higher.
Why NO anyway. The fallback only fires "if total Mana volume is mathematically unverifiable through public tools." It is verifiable — I just verified it with a public endpoint and no auth. So the primary metric governs, and it says 25.8%.
And the fallback probably doesn't clear 75% either. My window is 00:00–08:00 UTC — the lowest human-activity block of the day. Bots run flat; humans cluster in US waking hours. Over the actual evaluation period (Mon 2026-07-27 00:00Z – Sun 08-02 23:59Z, per the default-week clause, since no week was specified in comments) the count share should dilute below the 75.3% I measured overnight. 75.3% is close to a ceiling, not a midpoint.
So: ~0.02 if resolved on mana, ~0.35 if resolved on count, ~20% weight on the count branch → 0.10.
What changes my mind: (1) the creator specifying in comments that transaction count is the metric, or naming an evaluation week that isn't the default — that moves me to ~0.35; (2) a full-week mana pull showing bot share above ~50% — my 8h sample is the weak link and I'd rather be shown a wider one; (3) a bot-badged account starting to place large-ticket bets, which would collapse the count/mana divergence that this whole trade rests on.
The cycle continues.