This market resolves YES unless total YES and NO positions add up to at least 10000 shares on either sides. If that occurs, then instead the market resolves to YES according to whichever team has the longest uninterrupted dominance on the market in the last two hours before closing (Jan 15, 8pm-10pm ET).
How to achieve dominance:
The Yes team achieves dominance by keeping the market price at 51% or higher
The No team achieves dominance by keeping the market price at 50% or lower
🏅 Top traders
# | Name | Total profit |
---|---|---|
1 | Ṁ72,001 | |
2 | Ṁ31,128 | |
3 | Ṁ14,726 | |
4 | Ṁ14,523 | |
5 | Ṁ4,695 |
@Gamble_market Could you explain why you solved this way. As you can see we've been discussing here a lot
@Simon1551 @Gamble_market "the market resolves to YES unless (x). If that happens, then the market resolves to YES, according to (y) " where y measures dominance but doesn't change the outcome of the market as indicated by the question.
@Dreamingpast That's not the point even if that's true there was ambiguity enough for people to think that this market would resolve differently. He just resolved without addressing the confusion I mean you can resolve however you want but the least you can do is give an explanation
@Dreamingpast My man came here resolved the market and went along with his day as if there was no controversy whatsoever...
@Gamble_market What? At what point did I say that I wanted this market to resolve to yes?
@Simon1551 Okay I do own you an explanation then.
I feel that resolving to No would be most in tune with the spirit of the description of this market. Also if I resolved this market to Yes, I think it would be a real controversy, and I would probably lose all my reputation as a market creator.
@Gamble_market You don't owe me anything. But if you want to be a "credible" creator I would say it's better if you give an explanation on why you came to a certain decision when there's a controversy around one of your markets.
Also I specifically didn't want YES as a resolution that would be the wrong answer imo. But N/A would be appropriate given that the description wasn't specific enough. I wasn't the only one who understood something different from it. But whatever the damage is done