YES FOR PEPE
NO FOR YEE
50.1%<YES = PEPE WINS
49.9%> = YEE WINS
1,000
3.00PEPE WINS!!!
NEW MARKET HAS OPENED. BE ADVISED, THE FORMAT HAS CHANGED!
https://manifold.markets/BettersonMcgee/pepe-vs-yee-1-day-only-7595aff1c4bc
INSTEAD OF BEING DECIDED BY THE MARKET ITSELF, NOW THE OUTCOME WILL BE DECIDED BY ME ASKING A RANDOM DGG'ER IN DGG CHAT AFTER THE MARKET CLOSES TO CHOSE PEPE VS YEE. WHATEVER THEY DECLARE, WILL WIN. If they neglect to answer or say anything other than Pepe or Yee, I will select a new chatter and repeat until a winner is declared.
How can you trust I will be fair and unbiased despite being a bleeding heart Pepe supporter?
That will be up to you. I hope so far I've demonstrated enough fairness to not rig the meme markets for fake internet money.
Seriously though, I will always do my absolute best to remain as unbiased as possible when determining the outcome.
MAY THE BEST SPECIES WIN
The recurring vulnerability is trivially easy to fix, just close it ahead of time before the massive dumps show up. But really, you should go full memes and try completely different solutions. Maybe ask a random chatter to pick the winning side. Or go by the option that dominated for the longest time. Or outright ignore last-minute swings. DGG is bleeding.
@yaboi69 I've thought of closing it ahead of time, but the problem is I am very blatantly bias in favour of Pepe and no sane dino would bet on this market knowing I'll randomly be closing it. In any situation where I close it and its in favour of Pepe, it will always look like foul play. The only way it could truly work is if it is genuinely a random number or something I generate ahead of time, but still, can seem bias whenever Pepe wins. The random chatter idea works and is quite in the spirit of it. I'll consider trying that out for the next round.
PEPE WINS
