This market was inspired by my previous chaos theory markets. The problem with those was that they each resolved themselves, so the markets were more about finding a fixed point than actual chaos.
I am correcting this by making a sequence of markets. At the end of each month the market will close. Then the market for that month will resolve, and the rest of the markets will re-open.
The January 2024 market resolves to 50%.
Each market after that resolves to 3.56995*x*(1-x) rounded to the nearest percent, where x is the displayed value (as a fraction) of the market for the prior month, before it resolves.
So, for example, if the January 2024 market is trading at 40% at the end of January, and the market closes, the January 2024 market will then resolve to 50% at that time, and a month later, the February 2024 market will resolve to 86% ~ 85.68 = 3.56995*0.4*(1-0.4).
Anyone can extend by adding more months. Please match the format and don't make a month unless the prior month already exists, otherwise I will N/A.
Update: It's becoming a bit tedious to repeatedly reopen this, so I'm going to change this to just remain open permanently. Where the above says "the price of the market when it closes at the end of the month" one should just interpret it as "the price of the market at the end of the month, US Central time".
Related questions
@BoltonBailey Please resolve June to 38%. Closed at 38% so July will close at 84%. Thanks.
@BoltonBailey Please resolve to 10%, and reopen so we can trade June. May closed at 12% so June should resolve to 38% I think.
@BoltonBailey incorrect. April closed at 84%
Edit. Ah, the plot shows a last second jump back to 84%, but that was the resolution itself moving the probability, I think.
@BoltonBailey yeah, the plot either glitches or shows the resolution itself as a last second market movement.
@BoltonBailey That’s odd. It looks like 97% is the last trade and how the payouts were determined, but the answer in the list shows it resolving at 84%. I feel like it should count as 97% but I’m biased.
@TonyPepperoni I think everything makes sense here and is unambiguous. The comment below says that April was supposed to resolve at 84% because of how the March market closed, and that's how it resolved. The May market will now resolve based off of how the April market closed at 97%, which is a different number than 84%, but the whole fun of this market is that that is always a possibility.
@BoltonBailey Oops, im dumb and mixing up my percentages. Yes, it absolutely should resolve to 84%. The UI tripped me up because the bar is shown 84% full, and I thought it would show somehow that it closed at 97%. So, when I saw it I thought my trades didn’t go through. But as long as it counts as 97% for the next month I’m all good. Sorry for the confusion.
I feel this won’t be too chaotic either. The current month resolution is fixed, and people will price the next one or two accordingly, and ignore the far future. The only way to win is to snipe the close, which isn’t too much fun imo. Also, the rounding kills much of the potential for indeterminacy.
Finally, seems to me allowing the parameter (3.56995) to vary somehow based on trader behavior is key to getting chaotic prices, as it opens up the full logistic map as a canvas for manipulation, instead of just sniping the close.