🏅 Top traders

Ridiculous. Where is the evidence it went below 65

@ChrisMillsc5f7 well, evidence is right below your comment. But I will state it again.
Coinbase -

Coin Market Cap -

Yahoo Finance -

@100Anonymous ok fair thx

I don't understand the issue of this market. When i check on Google finance, bitcoin was never below 65k in march

@InvestorOakmont it depends on the sources you use, but most popular exchanges had it go below 65K.

@traders mods got pinged and I see you all debating it. here's my call, since a chart of reference wasn't specified:

• multiple charts said it happened

• more importantly, one could trade for BTC on at least one exchange (Coinbase) for sub-65k at some point

Resolving YES

@Stralor what charts?

@Stralor what charts???

@StockKing @ChrisMillsc5f7 read the other comments

@Stralor the ones that favor your view presumably

@ChrisMillsc5f7 @StockKing several exchanges, biggest is Coinbase, seen in the weekly chart (30-min close granularity so not the lowest low):

The Coinbase Advanced Trading UI shows the real lowest low if you want even at 1-min candlesticks (gotta scroll back a lot. or pick any higher timeframe and the low still shows, just a coarser graph than this):

As for index/aggregators, a common standard is CoinMarketCap's historical data:

Yahoo! Finance Historical Data:

I guess Yahoo uses CMC as a source.

@ChrisMillsc5f7 bruh I didn't trade here. I came in as arbiter

@Stralor ok sorry, got a bit annoyed losing manna on this damn thing

64971.71 on 29th March per https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/BTC-USD/history/

What does this question use?

@deagol this is gonna be fun

@vdb there's always a bigger whale i guess. gl!

@deagol i have no clue what people are trading on, honestly

@vdb well, you're one of us. what are you trading on?

@deagol see what happens

@deagol what about you?

@vdb de-escalating lol

@CCat polymarket resolved Yes as final outcome (https://polymarket.com/event/what-price-will-bitcoin-hit-in-march-2026). Though whether this market should also could be debated.

@vdb that's based on Binance BTC/USDT pair hitting 65k, it hit it exactly. It's USD here, and needs to be below. It did happen on a few exchanges and the CMC index also went below. I pissed 400 mana here, oh well.

@CCat pinging just in case you might wanna check this despite 1 month inactive. otherwise cc @mods

I see it hit <65k in Coinbase, Kraken, Bitstamp (likely others), and CoinMarketCap, Yahoo but not yet on Binance (exactly 65k in USDT not USD), Google or CoinGecko. Is that not enough?

btw this is some insane price graph

@deagol It also printed a few sub-$65K numbers on CF Benchmarks, which is the market aggregator Kalshi uses for most or all of their crypto markets.
However the 'will it go under $65K in March' market has not yet resolved on Kalshi, because they trim out the top and bottom prices in every minute candle and then do some averaging with the rest, so that very brief wicks (less than 20-30 seconds) generally won't cause a result.

@deagol Classic case for N/A. Resolution is purely based on the exact resolution criteria. And resolution criteria are non-existent.

Imo, this should also be N/A if the creator came back and resolved Yes or No or (both would be correct it seems), as it just doesn't make sense if both Yes and No are totally fine.

@Primer With Polymarket resolving a very similar market to 'Yes' and Kalshi to 'No' (well, not yet, but likely) - based I assume on some very fine details of the criteria, which vary between sites - I would tend to agree. But we will see.

@BorisBartlog Polymarket and Kalshi have criteria. Those can be argued and interpreted, there can be precedents, the site can set new rules for the future, etc. If we had all of those mechanisms, I'd see more reason tobtry to avoid N/A. But what we got here is just totally random: According to Manifold's rules, the creator can just resolve as they please, as long as they don't deliberately misresolve.

@Primer I think this should resolve to yes, because it doesn't really matter which exchange it happens on. It is confirmed that in some major exchange, the average trading price of Bitcoin at a particular time in March was below 65K. It doesn't really matter whether Google or Binance did not have it go below 65K, but other exchanges still went below 65K.

@100Anonymous Certainly a defendable stance. But looking at this market's chart, it seems not all traders share that view.

Maybe some think "Well, BTC went below 65k on exchange X, market didn't resolve, so obviously creator uses Binance as source of truth. I'll buy more No." Which can be correct thinking. Sometimes. Maybe the creator is just gone. Or maybe just waits for resolution date.

In any case, people trade on how they assume others will trade on how those assume traders will interpret how mods will interpret what traders initially could assume was the creator's intent. And I don't like that.

@100Anonymous By the way: If you want the next market like this to resolve Yes:

1. Have lots of Mana

2. Hold the market way above 90%

3. "Obviously, people were trading under the assumption 'any exchange suffices', resolves Yes"

Same works for No.

@Primer I don't have that much mana, so usually I wouldn't want to risk it (I mean, it takes a lot of mana to go above 90%, and in the end I may lose mana because of a bigger whale).
Well, about your previous comment, this market is a case study. A user asked for clarification, but the creator was inactive, so a mod set the criteria based on what he assumed traders were betting on. And remember the creator is inactive, so they can't really say that the creator "uses Binance and because of that it didn't resolve." Creator is not active anyway.

@Primer never mind, it's a 100M liquidity market, but it may still have limit orders below 90%.

@100Anonymous

so a mod set the criteria based on what he assumed traders were betting on.

there's no criteria, at no point has any mod set nor said anything

@deagol oh sorry, confused you for @bens.