The choices were crowdsourced and I didn't add any extra myself. See the post here for more info.
Vote for just one. If you have questions about a feature it's probably not your favorite anyway.
You should use your own judgement to decide if you should vote for a feature they'll never build, or for one you think they might actually build.
I'm hoping to see at least one answer get to 25 votes, can we do it?
1,000People are also trading
@AlexanderTheGreater Hmm. I thought buying was always the best option? Particularly in terms of loans.
@JussiVilleHeiskanen not sure about loans. I struggle investing the mana I have.
The issue with buying NO instead of just seeing my YES shares (or vice versa) is that it's not obvious how much the order needs to be for. If you have multiple at different prices, all bets are off.
Ohhh this is great. My takes:
custom sort: low priority, might clog the UI
mandatory resolution criteria: could be good, depending on how implemented, but low priority
Limit orders with decimal points: YES PLEASE!
higher/lower markets: what is this?
Clans: must we?
Achievement leaderboards: low priority
Market of the week: YES PLEASE! And this can also feed into a leaderboard for markets of the week profit (maybe with like a rolling 6 month time horizon or something?)
User calibration page comeback: calibration never made sense to me tbh for market-based sites, it just strictly seems worse than profit on all fronts, but as a vanity thing why not idk
Limit sell: isn’t this already implemented? Do you really need mana on hand to cash out? Wouldn’t that happen instantaneously every 1 mana increment as long as you had a positive net worth?
Private leagues: oooh! Cool idea, MEDIUM priority
Direct Manifold login: seems good for the internet hermits
Filter for markets near 50%: umm, idk seems easy I guess? But why?
Parlays: no clue how this would be implemented but this makes no sense to me
Stop loss and take profit: intriguing but seems extremely challenging to implement without ummm… manipulation
what is this?
If you want more details, all these were suggested by individuals in the linked Post. You can grill them there.
Limit sell: isn’t this already implemented? Do you really need mana on hand to cash out?
Current status: If you're trying to sell 100 No shares at 50%, by making a Yes order for 100 shares at 50%, and someone tries to match it when your balance is 40 mana, then your order is canceled and you get nothing.
Users also want to denominate these limit orders in share count (matching their position size), which is currently only available for market orders for unknown reasons.
(partially copied from https://manifold.markets/post/you-can-create-discussion-posts-now)
Strongly felt requests for next new question types:
Polls where you can vote with equal valence for multiple options i.e. tick all that apply
Polls where you can vote with descending valence for multiple options i.e. ranked choice voting
Polls where you can switch your vote an unlimited number of times, ideally with a graph showing the answer ratios over time like with market odds i.e. approval rating
Polls where users can add new options like with multi choice markets
See also:
"fun" markets such as "will I poop today"
These fall under the Extremely serious and important questions tag, please let me know of any applicable markets missing from it
@Jo2e2b if there are markets you don't want to see I think the recommendation is to block the topics they fall under.
@Eliza I checked, I don't see any common tags I could filter by. Let me know if you see a way to do this without any changes to manifold.
@Jo2e2b In addition to blocking a topic, you can click in to an individual market and block it or mark that you are not interested in it:
@Eliza I do block markets on a regular basis, but there are new ones each day. Uninterested is not smart enough to understand the issue.
@ProjectVictory so are decimal point limit orders (and numerous other long time requests). If an option like this gets a lot of support it might be more effective than just my begging at getting something changed.
@Eliza honestly I'm not sure how it can be implemented well. For some markets like "will X person die before EOY 2029?" no criteria is really necessary. For some like "AGI before 2030?" you can write a short book in the description and still end up with an argument after market closes. (And no, AI generated criteria can be as ambiguous and misleading as human written ones.)
@ProjectVictory yeah I think mandatory resolution criteria won't solve anything. People who want to write low effort, low quality resolution criteria will continue to do so either way.
Edit: I retract the below. Primer is right.
[At the end of the day, this is a site about markets, and "making good markets" is also a market. If users think resolution criteria are rubbish, they should vote with their feet and trade elsewhere (or make a new market with better criteria).]
they should vote with their feet and trade elsewhere
They don't. Quite the opposite. Traders have their own interpretation in mind and see an opportunity to correct the price. Other traders have different interpretations, leading to heavy trading and high market visibility.
@ProjectVictory It's pretty difficult to actually achieve. But Manifold could start towards the right direction. Currently when creating a market, the "Description" field is "optional". Make it mandatory and tell users "Please provide resolution criteria. Optional: Add background and additional info."