🏅 Top traders

Huh. that's annoying. It seems that the resolution criteria have been met, but there have been new signups later. I think I have to resolve NO, even despite my "if I'm in doubt I'll keep it open" provision. It's quite clear to me that for the past few hours, traders have been placing bets based on the assumption that there's no "doubt", and I think that's the most logical interpretation.

If any YES bettors placed a bet after @MrLuke255's comment saying the resolution criteria have been met, and you claim that you made your bet because you felt my "if I'm in doubt I'll keep it open" should have been triggered, let me know how much you lost and I'll send you a managram. I am quite clear that NO is the correct resolution, but I also think I could have written the criteria more clearly, and I do think it's regrettable that I'm resolving NO despite the fact that the Ponzi scheme still very well may get 316 participants!

Thanks for playing, folks, and thanks for bringing my attention to the resolution criteria being met. :)

@Fion after checking the logs it seems the period has safely passed between those two participants:
@Dynd - 2023-09-02 17:50:02.623981+02:00.

@ClemensReutin - 2023-09-04 22:00:02.300149+02:00.

Some money to be made on that one too.

https://manifold.markets/Fion/will-the-ponzi-scheme-get-more-than-997f0fe33c7b?r=U2ViYXN0aWFuV29ybXM

Will the Ponzi scheme get more than 1000 participants?

7% chance. "Participant" is defined according to the "unique investors" cell in @CodeandSolder's handy spreadsheet. Currently cell Q1. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ezIasHt72Amgn0V1qZ9vjSL-wyrJw6UZ0DTl1RRd7FE/edit#gid=0 (Note that this is slightly different to the previous resolution criteria. See history for the old one, and see comments for the lack of objections to the change. Shouldn't make much (if any) difference to the outcome, but much easier 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 1000 is reached. https://manifold.markets/CodeandSolder/manifolds-first-completely-legal-po?r=Rmlvbg [link preview]

@Fion I think this resolution criteria has been met: "36 hour period passes with no new signups"

@MrLuke255 Can you see the last sign-up? It was at 241 this morning but don't know since how long.

@SebastianWorms The last few signups are unclaimed, so it's not clear to me the lack of comment is definitive

@SebastianWorms I went to the Ponzi market, sorted by newest and checked the date when the most recent comment was added (hover on "1d")

@MrLuke255 @CodeandSolder Do you have a way to see when the last unique investor signed up?

@SebastianWorms according to spreadsheet edit history it's been 241 since this edit:

@SebastianWorms they aren't chronologically last, just unclaimed so without a reserved spot

@CodeandSolder Awesome, couldn't see the edit history. What timezone is the sheet in?

@SebastianWorms Europe/Warsaw

@CodeandSolder Awesome, so unless a new signup occurs, the market should resolve in about 4 hours

Only reason I'm not pouring way more mana into this is that I think it's possible someone goes to the trouble of creating dozens of alts.

@SebastianWorms But that would be against the community guidelines, right?

@MrLuke255 Maybe? I don't know the details of the community guidelines

count please

@8 Currently 217 by my count

@Gnostic
Column B of the profit tracker contains every slot sold as generated by the algorithm. The number of unique usernames in it is calculated by the Sheet in Q1 (-1 for "unclaimed"). That number is 216.
Column F contains every commenter who bought at least one share, as evidenced by column H each of them got a payout. It has 216 populated rows.
The market has as far as I remember two people who got refunds after putting in <M100 and a couple more with multiple bountied comments.

If it ends up being <5 people from threshold I can create a separate script to verify it and present an auditable Jupyter Notebook.

I’m staying bullish - this Ponzi scheme has been a boon for not only participating in it but the markets it has spawned. Ponzi schemes for life! Right, Bernie Madoff?

… Bernie?

@LBeesley #bernie2024

Would any current participants in this market object if I change the resolution criteria to explicitly relate to @CodeandSolder's spreadsheet? Realistically that seems like the best way to check but it might result in an off-by-one discrepancy compared to the "anyone who receives a payout" criteria I initially planned before I was aware of the spreadsheet.

I'll wait at least 16 hours to give a chance for objections.

@Fion there currently should not be an off-by-one either as all participants get payouts from the slots purchased by people who did not leave comments anyway.

The block in the center has everybody who has participated generated by the script and the number is the same

I didn't get any objections so updating the description now. Should be easier for market participants (and me!) to see what the status is now.

If the Unique Inverstors cell in the Automatic Tracker is to be believed, we are currently at 212 participants.

@NoyaV it's calculated directly in the sheet from the list of slots, should be the most reliable source