Scandal markets for EA related things will unfairly tank someone's reputation before 2024, or otherwise seem (ETA: significantly) negative EV in retrospect because of drama caused or changed perception of EA.
84
153
1.7K
resolved Jan 2
Resolved
NO


e.g https://manifold.markets/group/scandal-markets

This is likely just going to be up to my personal take, but I welcome others' takes on how to think about this. I won't resolve NO if it's basically neutral but a tiny bit negative.

Note: This market will resolve ambiguously if I am confident that someone takes a large position and the attempts to use other markets to cause problems.

Close date updated to 2023-12-31 11:59 pm

Get Ṁ1,000 play money

🏅 Top traders

#NameTotal profit
1Ṁ1,643
2Ṁ184
3Ṁ153
4Ṁ110
5Ṁ77
Sort by:
predicted NO

Do you mean "significantly negative" or "literally <0" because those two are quite different.

predicted NO

@NathanpmYoung I would request seem "largely negative EV"

@NathanpmYoung Yup agreed.

Scandal markets for particular group houses seem pretty intense and make me nervous for some reason. Buying a few yes. See the markets on Gensis house.

sold Ṁ623 of NO

Related:

bought Ṁ10 of YES

Related:

sold Ṁ27 of YES

Initially I misread this question as:

Scandal markets for EA related things will unfairly tank someone's reputation before 2024, or otherwise make EA seem negative EV [...]

I think this is an issue with my reading comprehension, but I thought I'd make a note.

bought Ṁ100 of NO

if people airing your dirty laundry hurts you, that's not evidence that your dirty laundry shouldn't be aired or that airing it is negative EV. I think this is true even if you are mother theresa.

EA has already lost more EV to people being too cautious about criticizing the ingroup than it will ever lose to people criticizing the ingroup. "More stalins" circlejerks like the EA criticism contest do not fix this.

bought Ṁ100 of NO

Note: This market will resolve ambiguously if I am confident that someone takes a large position and the attempts to use other markets to cause problems.

I think this is a mistake. If the markets here unfairly effect someone’s reputation then this should resolve to yes, even if that person is motivated by this market.

predicted YES

@EzraNewman Why exactly would the market creator want to incentivize people to unfairly affect someone's reputation

predicted YES

@vluzko Good point I guess. I think that that incentive already exists because you can get your payout from the other markets, but changes the predictive power of this one.

But upon reflection I think that’s a good point.

bought Ṁ30 of NO

@NathanpmYoung just N/Ad some of their markets due to some Twitter drama. This market seemed like the best place to discuss that, I hope neither of you mind me making this comment here.

The Twitter drama in question wasn't about any particular EA, so I don't think it should resolve this YES. It was also a pretty small amount of drama from what I could see, just the exact same sort of "markets bad" rhetoric from people who don't understand the difference between prediction markets and the blockchain.

I doubt something like that will actually change much of anyone's opinion about EA; looked to me like people who were just looking for the most convenient excuse to dunk on a movement they had already decided to dunk on.

Personally I'm less averse to Twitter drama, so I'm considering making more markets of this type. But if that would actually be bad for EA, I don't want to do that. Thoughts?

bought Ṁ60 of YES

@IsaacKing I think I'd wait a bit before making EA markets. Other kinds I don't have an opinion on.

@IsaacKing I ended up resolving the one for 2023 NO on the basis of similar thinking.

bought Ṁ30 of NO

To confirm, the "unfairly" part is a qualifier, not a descriptor, right? If the markets bring to light serious problems and the person's reputation is tanked justifiably, this doesn't resolve to YES, right?

@IsaacKing Didn't track the first question, but the answer to the second question is that you're right, that would not cause me to resolve to yes

predicted NO

@ChanaMessinger You've answered my question, but just to explain my first sentence, I meant the difference between:

  • Markets that tank someone's reputation, and only the ones that do so unfairly.

  • Markets that tank someone's reputation, which by the way, is unfair.

In the first sentence, "unfairly" is a qualifier; it's taking the set of "markets that tank someone's reputation" and reducing it down to a smaller set of "markets that tank someone's reputation unfairly".

In the second sentence, "unfairly" is a descriptor, telling us how you feel about someone's reputation being tanked by a market. Under this interpretation, the word doesn't add any explanatory power to the market title, and the market would resolve the same way if it weren't there.

See here for a more detailed explanation of what I mean:

https://everythingstudies.com/2019/10/30/cat-couplings/

bought Ṁ10 of NO

Is this negative EV in total, over all "EA scandal markets", or just a single market that was negative EV taken in isolation?

@MartinRandall Great question, I want to say negative EV in total

Scandal markets for EA related things will unfairly tank someone's reputation before 2024, or otherwise seem negative EV in retrospect because of drama caused or changed perception of EA., 8k, beautiful, illustration, trending on art station, picture of the day, epic composition

More related questions