This specifically refers to markets that specifically state they will resolve YES and offer free money to any who bets on them, regardless of if they have a bet limit or not.
Related questions
🏅 Top traders
# | Name | Total profit |
---|---|---|
1 | Ṁ137 | |
2 | Ṁ91 | |
3 | Ṁ67 | |
4 | Ṁ41 | |
5 | Ṁ26 |
That type of market has just been banned, which delightfully enough means that this market can now be in the "free money" group.
FWIW I don't think these markets add any value to Manifold, and take up trader attention for no good reason. I would be in favor of banning these, as they're just exploiting current market mechanics (or otherwise changing trader bonus systems/homepage algorithms to make these much less surfaced.)
@Austin If you ban "markets that resolve to YES and have an upper limit on how much you can bet", people will find some other way to exploit the bonus.
If you ban "anything that seems like it's trying to exploit the bonus", that'll leave people unsure what they're allowed to do and how close to the line they can get.
@IsaacKing The existence of an arms race situation doesn't imply it's not worth it to engage in the race. It depends on how quickly things re-equilibrate. At the very least, it seems against the spirit of the site to create markets that don't ask a question and just assert in advance what the resolution will be. Likewise for markets that ask about something that is not subject to any reasonable degree of uncertainty (e.g. "Will the earth revolve around the sun?").
@IsaacKing I think those sorts of markets are more defensible than the more recent iteration of "this will resolve YES tomorrow" sort, in that they do have a purpose other than increasing the $M assets of participants. However, measuring the discount rate in a play money system doesn't interest me personally and has little to do with prediction. I don't think the site would really be worse off without them.
@IsaacKing In that case the question is still answered "yes" as it doesn't specify the ban has to stick.