I'll count a "participant" as somebody who gets a payout. I realise this isn't the most obvious way to define it but it's the easiest for me to check.
Close date extends indefinitely until the Ponzi scheme seems to be over. This could be:
It gets shut down by admins
@CodeandSolder decides to end it
A 36 hour period passes with no new signups. I'm not sure how easy it is to tell when somebody adds a subsidy so I might define this as above. But the point of this criterion is that it should only kick in if activity dries up, so if I'm doubt I'll keep it open.
Resolves YES if 100 is reached.
https://manifold.markets/CodeandSolder/manifolds-first-completely-legal-po?r=Rmlvbg
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ92 | |
| 2 | Ṁ54 | |
| 3 | Ṁ30 | |
| 4 | Ṁ25 | |
| 5 | Ṁ25 |
People are also trading
This market seems to be marked as "non predictive". I don't think I did this myself and it doesn't seem to be correct, since this market is making a prediction. Is this just a case of admins discouraging a "low quality" market or did I make a mistake when creating it? Seems weird not to get a notification if it is admin action so I assume I pressed a wrong button when creating the market. (But then why can't I change it retroactively?)
Does anybody understand this?
@JosephNoonan I'm going to say no, because that seems easy to manipulate. But I'm not happy about it, because it will make my counting harder.
@Fion I really much enjoy not being you. Right now 98 100M bounties have been posted, so you'll soon have to start counting.