Is a market that always resolves to MKT particularly prone to market manipulation?
Self-resolving
6
11
resolved Feb 8
Resolved
YES
Try and convince me otherwise. #meta #marketmanipulation #sitemechanics Jan 28, 4:06pm: See https://manifold.markets/JamesGrugett/is-ai-a-greater-existential-risk-to for an example. Jan 28, 4:10pm: #Shortterm
Get Ṁ200 play money

Related questions

🏅 Top traders

#NameTotal profit
1Ṁ3
2Ṁ0
3Ṁ0
4Ṁ0
11 Comments
16 Trades
Sort by:
bought Ṁ1 of YES
So it's the non-objectiveness and the certainty of how a market will be resolved that cause the problem, no the MKT?
bought Ṁ1 of YES
No. The argument is that if your resolution condition is not anchored to something objective rather than mere betting behavior, the market will not produce meaningful results. Resolving to MKT is fine if the contract has objective resolution criteria and if traders don't know that you're committed to always resolving MKT (if they *do* know you're always going to resolve MKT or according to bet volume, then that opens up the possibility—really, certainty—of manipulation and means the market process will not be predicting anything useful.)
bought Ṁ1 of NO
So it sounds like the argument is that markets that resolve to MKT are equally prone to manipulation as other markets?
bought Ṁ1 of YES
That market didn't resolve MKT, but was resolved according to whichever side had more bet on it. It's the same underlying problem: the results aren't meaningful if a single deep-pocketed trader (or group of traders) can swoop in before the market closes and arbitrarily choose whichever outcome they prefer.
bought Ṁ1 of YES
Did that market resolve MKT? That seems to be a counterpoint; a market that did not resolve MKT was just as easy to manipulate.
bought Ṁ1 of YES
@Duncan, I think your original intuition is correct. Always resolving MKT leads to completely meaningless results. Case in point: https://manifold.markets/JiaobeiMandos/should-manifold-markets-implement-t-de1088aa58674
sold Ṁ4 of NO
James argues that in MKT markets, actors are trying to predict actions of others (shelling point) but thats not the case for a typical MKT market unless you put a hard cap on maximum bet size for these markets. If you put a hard cap then it more of becomes a voting system that rewards the majority from the minority
bought Ṁ1 of YES
Based on my opinion; you'll have to convince me otherwise. However, I will not sell my 'losing' shares prior to resolving, so there is something to win. Alternatively, if a significant number of people bid no AND convince me that their belief is wisely held and stronger than my own, I may resolve no. Given that many are better than math than I, this could be the winning strategy.
bought Ṁ5 of NO
how will this market be resolved @Duncan ?
bought Ṁ1 of YES
That can't do much better than a yes/no at best, surely?
bought Ṁ1 of YES
I would say that it is! But there is also a factor of trying to predict what everyone else is going to do. The Schelling point may be the truth. So you would come out ahead by bidding the probability to where others would bid it.

Related in Self-resolving

See more Self-resolving questions

More related questions