@Bayesian I'm not sure, but the GOAT market for Newton vs Darwin might qualify?

https://manifold.markets/houstonEuler/-who-is-manifolds-goat-final-four-p?r=VGltb3RoeUpvaG5zb241YzE2

Hmmmm intuitively it wouldn't bc it's very low liquidity so a swing costs barely 100M which is worth literally 10 cents so really isn't significant. I don't think it fits with the spirit of this market, though if you disagree I welcome you to explain your reasons ig. if it ends up not counting i would consider adding to the description something about how liquidity has to be somewhat significant, because back in the pre-pivot days any active market got injected automatic subsidy that made all big markets highly subsidized, but now this popular market still has massive swings bc no subsidy gets injected anymore, which I had not planned for

@Bayesian Ah, okay, it also doesn't have 100 traders yet

I thought the Rafah market was close, but it's only had three swings in the past week instead of four. https://manifold.markets/ManifoldPolitics/what-will-happen-first-a-ceasefire?r=VGltb3RoeUpvaG5zb241YzE2

Should this be a lesson like, never bet a market all the way down to zero?

Are these end-of-year or start-of-year?

@TheAllMemeingEye good question, I clarified it. By 2024 became "Before 2025" and so on

Could we have the criteria quantified so that resolution is clear?
how about a >70% swing 4 times?
or a >70% swing 2 times? to make it easier?

@AmmonLam Yeah this doesn’t seem too hard to quantify. Min # of traders, and min size of swings?

@Ziddletwix Right, we need min # of traders too.

@Bayesian pinging you again in case you missed this

@AmmonLam lol i was typing rn

Yeah I'm thinking about it, my fear of strict criteria is that if it's the wrong criteria it doesn't fit the original intent of the question. I'm trying to ask "will we mess up again in a similar way" and hmm

so far this is what i got:
70%+ swings 4+ times;

the highs and lows are quantified using the highest average value sustained over 3 hours ig? so like, if the market hangs around 75% on avg for 3hours, that's what counts for the peak of the multi-swing. seems like what i did when eyeballing the values for the altman market

and you need something like 5 traders per high / low for it to count? but also if they're bots or alts to manipulate this market i don't want it to count

any criticism / improvement on the above?

I think the above looks good. I would add a criteria that the market need to have something like 200 unique traders