Resolves end of 2023.
Yes if Bounty Ponzis that do not pay out, pay out too little, or somehow trick well-meaning participants are suppressed either by moderation, or by enforcing the payout, or by labeling trustworthy Ponzis; AND honest, hard working Ponzis are left to operate on the free market of pyramids.
No if no Ponzi repression, or indiscriminate overreach over all Ponzis categories.
For the purpose of this market, Ponzi repression does not need to be formally targeted, only that Ponzi operation are hindered, whether by moderation or technical mean (for instance, limiting payout somehow).
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ47 | |
| 2 | Ṁ19 | |
| 3 | Ṁ8 | |
| 4 | Ṁ8 | |
| 5 | Ṁ6 |
People are also trading
As a europoor I will not be here around mods waking up, so please receive this gift of a white paper in case the PonziPAC operatives cannot ensure a laissez faire appproach
For public release
In response to recent developments, the Ponzi Legislative Action Group (PLAG) is proud to announce its comprehensive vision for enhanced oversight of pyramid schemes, safeguarding the interests of consumers while fostering the vibrant entrepreneurial spirit that defines this dynamic sector within the mana economy.
Our strategic framework encompasses the following key measures:
1. Implementation of a Rigorous Licensing Framework: A limited number of exclusive ponzi licenses will be subject to a competitive auction process, ensuring meticulous control over the proliferation of pyramid structures. Unauthorized Bounty Ponzi endeavors will be swiftly eradicated, with their creators held accountable through fines.
2. Establishing Clear Parameters: A standardized Ponzi black box advisory will be mandated, alongside transparent disclosures of payoff schedules, projected breakeven thresholds, and closure timelines. Operators will be legally bound to fulfill their contractual obligations, facing penalties and personal liability for any breaches. The inherent right of market operators to receive compensation, whether through participation or fees, will be upheld.
3. Equitable Distribution of Gains and Losses: While profits will be collectively distributed via the conventional high-return pyramidal model, losses will be channeled through an innovative mechanism. The individual providing the last comment prior to market closure, the Bagholder of Last Resort (BoLR), will assume the Ponzi license from the operator. This arrangement will grant them the opportunity to spearhead the subsequent Ponzi venture, subject to expiration and re-auction.
4. Embedding Sustainability: All Ponzi schemes will incorporate a mandatory moderating fee, constituting a percentage of total returns, dedicated to charitable contributions. The selected charity will also be the beneficiary of proceeds from licensing auctions, reinforcing the alignment of economic pursuits with philanthropic endeavors.
In fostering a regulated environment that balances market vitality with consumer security, PLAG remains steadfast in its commitment to promoting responsible entrepreneurship and fortifying the integrity of the mana economy.
I imagine someone would be punished/fined if they made a Ponzi market but then lied about paying people out and took the money for themselves, since that would clearly violate Manifold's rules. The Ponzis that do pay out the way they said they would, and are honest about being being Ponzis, don't mislead anyone, so they probably won't be punished unless Manifold decides that they're bad for the site overall.
Maybe introducing the ability to rate Bounties could be good? Most Bounties don't close though, so it would have to be something you could do as soon as any of the bounty is paid out.
I also think some sort of official rule for "things that are annoying/bad PR for the site should be unlisted" would be well justified, but Ponzi Schemes are currently more funny than they are annoying (to me, the guy who invested early🙃).
@Joshua If unlisting them counts as a step to combat them, then I actually think that there's a high likelihood that they will combat all Ponzi markets, even the honest ones.
@Joshua that's tricky :d I would say that would resolve to YES, if it is possible to start new charity-fee Ponzis (E. g. with a policy like, Ponzis are allowed if X% fee is donated, X < 100%), but resolve NO if this is the only one grandfathered for lulz reason, with indiscriminate suppression otherwise. But Im open to arguments still.