This market will resolve to YES if there is some announcement from Manifold about a glitch used to generate a large amount of M$ exploited by SixtyNinthCause, or if there is substantial proof that this has occurred.
On September 24th, this user's balance shot up from around 30,000 M$ to 2,700,00 M$, and he is now #1 on the leaderboard by a factor of more than 10 times the runner-up. More concerningly, the runner-up is named @Pepe2 and appears to be an alternate account of the user in question.
This market will resolve to NO if it is either confirmed that SixtyNinthCause used legitimate means to generate this profit or if nothing has happened to resolve the market for all of 30 days from the date of its creation.
Related questions
๐ Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | แน34 | |
| 2 | แน22 | |
| 3 | แน18 | |
| 4 | แน17 | |
| 5 | แน12 |
How are you, @CalebMoore, defining "glitch". It looks like @Gigacasting is right that @Pepe got his M$ from wash trading which seems to bread community guidelines and is thus probably not considered "legitimate" but is also not really a "glitch" as one would commonly use that word.
@JG Same question, a couple months back @PeterBerggren got to the top of the leaderboard with a combination of free market farming, sockpuppet accounts and manalinking funds around. But all of those would technically be "exploits" rather than "glitches."
@NotMyPresident Sure, I'm wondering specifically what @CalebMoore defines as a glitch for the purpose of this question.
@Yev I don't think that's correct at all. He could be mistaken or just speaking casually.
I'm open to the idea that the intent of the question was more broad than just a software bug, but taken literally it seems to be a clear NO.
Why are you not asking about the other suspicious account?
https://manifold.markets/Yev/did-the-user-ninthcause-exploit-som
