surely this is a YES now that they're removing the bonuses entirely soon @benjaminIkuta

@strutheo are they replacing it with anything?

@benjaminIkuta transaction fees were added which are unquestionably lower, you can see them in the top of your market

trader bonuses were just removed from counting for leagues too

@strutheo Yes, I agree that going from bonuses to fees is a reduction. I'll wait for the change to actually happen

@benjaminIkuta may 15 </3

@BenjaminIkuta Can this resolve?

@IsaacKing no, not yet. I think if nothing changes by market close, I'll just resolve it to like 80% or something, to reflect the ambiguity.

But what about an increase?

Just wait until you get awarded a 1 mana trader bonus and post the screenshot here. Say it was reduced from 5. It might work!

@Eliza I'm sure I've already been awarded several

This has occurred, the bonus for traders after the 50th is down to M$1.

@IsaacKing That M1$ will be paid up to the 10000th trader now, though, so the idea was to shift the bonuses to large markets and not so much to reduce bonuses. It's also still the same unchanged M5$ up to 50 traders. I'm kind of ambivalent whether this should count, just giving context for whatever @BenjaminIkuta decides. Here's the discord announcement:

@NamesAreHard Yeah, that's a tricky one. I'll admit, what I had in mind was the number of traders it takes to recoup the initial M50 market creation cost, and I didn't even know the bonuses weren't awarded at higher counts. Anyway, since the bonus was increased for some counts and decreased for some counts, you can't unambiguously say it was decreased, I think, especially if the intention wasn't to decrease the bonuses overall.

@BenjaminIkuta Huh? It was unambiguously reduced. It was also increased in some other ways, but that's not relevant to the market. It doesn't ask whether the trader bonus will be strictly reduced with no other changes. What you "had in mind" doesn't seem particularly relevant when the title is that clear.

@IsaacKing Your reasoning makes sense.

@IsaacKing Not sure how you see the title as that clear, the reduction there can mean any reduction or strict reduction, the interpretation of which depends on the creator.

@NamesAreHard I mean the Discord screenshot even uses the word "reduced".

If the increase had been to go up to 101 traders instead of 10,000 would you still think that that increase should cancel out the reduction?

@IsaacKing The intent of the change or the actual outcome of it are the relevant things if the spirit of the question (i.e. what the creator wanted the market to be about) is whether market creators will get less overall benefits. Not sure why anyone would make a change like in your hypothetical, so it's hard to say anything about it? I guess if we kept the intent constant, then clearly the outcome there would be that the benefits will be decreased, so it would count.

@NamesAreHard I see, so you're saying it should be judged by the net effect on actual usage? If creators now get less mana from trader bonuses on average than before, that would count as a reduction?

@IsaacKing I'm mostly saying it's not unambiguous and I'm fine with however @BenjaminIkuta decides to judge it according to his original intent. Net effect seems like a reasonable interpretation, looking at admin intent behind the change also seems fine. N/A because of general messiness is also fine by me. Basically the only thing I wouldn't be happy about here is if this gets resolved YES for reasons which go against the original intent.

@NamesAreHard Admin said "Given the current size of Manifold, I think it's a net decrease, but it might become a net increase if the platform continues to grow"

I think my math in the same discord thread demonstrates that it's a massive net negative in bonus payout right now. You now need to get your market to 300 traders to get the same total bonus you used to get at 100. Very few markets get that many traders.

I just noticed it's only 3 mana now. That means they reduced it again, right?

@BenjaminIkuta no - that was the result of the initial halving

@RobertCousineau wait, I'm seeing 5 again. I'm confused.

@BenjaminIkuta binary is 5, multi is 3 from what I know.

@RobertCousineau huh, weird. I'm pretty sure I saw it say 3, and I didn't think I was making a multitude choice market. Perhaps I'm misremembering.

@BenjaminIkuta interesting! Likewise on my end.

@RobertCousineau Oh, interesting! So we both experienced what seemed to be the binary market bonus going from 5 to 3 and then back to 5? How odd.

@BenjaminIkuta I was saying likewise to possibly misremembering - I am not sure.