This market will have traded >M$22,499 in volume before the end of the month.
24
2
Ṁ23KṀ483
resolved May 30
Resolved
YES1D
1W
1M
ALL
Volume judged by "M$xyz bet" above the graph ^^^
Get Ṁ200 play money
Related questions
🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ1,281 | |
| 2 | Ṁ365 | |
| 3 | Ṁ214 | |
| 4 | Ṁ10 | |
| 5 | Ṁ9 |
Sort by:
@GeorgeVii I do not believe so. It is not even clear to me that I was returned the liquidity I added to the pool. I hope not because I have added at least $2500 but probably closer to $5000 to the liquidity of various markets to make them actually tradable. It is really annoying if that money then disappears or goes to the question creator or even worse just sits there in limbo eternally. Why even have that option if it doesn't pay fees to everyone contributing to the liquidity pool?? This is probably why nobody will answer my questions about tracking outstanding liquidity and fees earned. https://manifold.markets/BTE/will-manifold-add-a-way-to-track-yo
@GeorgeVii https://manifold.markets/SneakySly/this-market-will-have-traded-m29999 For example I have added $1000 in liquidity to this market and it allowed me to make a trading profit of $248 so far.
@BTE For a market like this where people buy YES up to basically 100%, almost nothing gets returned to the liquidity providers. But for a market that closes before the outcome is certain, quite a lot can be paid out to the liquidity providers. Providing liquidity is taking the other side of the trading, so you make money if the traders are betting in the wrong direction and you lose money if the traders are betting in the right direction. You should usually expect them to be more right than wrong, so right now providing liquidity can mostly be seen as subsidizing trading i.e. getting a more accurate answer to the question.
I think Manifold is working on a better system for liquidity that lets liquidity providers profit off of fees, i.e. you can profit off of market making, which would be super useful. https://manifold.markets/Austin/will-manifold-implement-uniswap-v3 is one possible form this could take. I think it's important to have a system that actually makes providing liquidity a profitable thing you can do, like how it works in financial markets - otherwise almost nobody does it.
I've looked at the code for how liquidity is paid out/returned at resolution time - how it works is that it calculates the payouts to the current shares in the liquidity pool - e.g. for a YES resolution, the YES shares that are still in the liquidity pool each get $1 payout, just like the YES shares held by bettors. Then it splits this payout to the liquidity providers proportional to how much liquidity you put in (it doesn't matter when or what price, just the amount you put in total).
@jack Thank you for the detailed response! So am I correct that the API currently assumes that liquidity providers are also traders/bettors in the market? This would actually square with what happened in this market. My bets show that I sold $1 of NO of my $200 bet and I am sure I didn't actually do that, so it was probably the API returning me the minimum share of the liquidity pool because I was on the wrong side of the outcome. The remainder of the $100-200 in subsidies I provided then was lost because it was distributed to the YES providers of liquidity, correct?
I don't know how the API reports the profits, but I had the impression (could be wrong) that providing liquidity didn't count towards profits/losses shown on your dashboard. Like when I create a market (costing me $100) and it ends up being traded to 100% and resolving yes, I don't think it counts against my profit number - it just reduces my balance.
The remainder of the liquidity you injected was lost because it was taken by the people who bought YES.
If the system were set up slightly differently, liquidity providers could profit off of the spread in trading or be paid fees (I think those are roughly equivalent). I think Manifold is also working on letting them be able to exit their positions (withdraw the liquidity), whether manually or automatically when the price moves out of a specified range. I think those are the key ingredients to allowing a profitable trading strategy as a market maker, which is how we can actually end up with more liquidity in the markets.
@jack Yes, I agree with everything you said. Actually, the fact that it recognized my comment as being "proven correct" is funny and clever because it paid me the $1 and was like "see you got a fee, you were right and wrong!!". LOL. This site is so much fun.
@jack So I just had another market resolve where I was betting correctly and provided $1000 in extra liquidity and when it resolved my money appeared to have gone to someone else. In fact, I think it even took away the $228 I made actively trading the market before it closed!! https://manifold.markets/SneakySly/this-market-will-have-traded-m29999
This can't be right. Your explanation before seemed to indicate this would not happen as long as I was not betting against the resolution. I didn't even have a position open at all when the market resolved so it should have returned me the liquidity i added but like i said it just took my profits away instead.
@BTE The $1000 liquidity all went to those buying YES, you shouldn't expect any of it back. That's completely separate from any of your betting. Putting in liquidity is implicitly taking a position on the other side of all the trading - which in this case, was mostly people correctly buying YES, which means you are losing money by putting in liquidity.
As for the $228 profits you made on active trading, that definitely should still be yours (it should be completely separate from the liquidity). Since you said you closed out your position before the market resolved, you should have received that through any sells you did, and nothing further would have happened to it.
I.e. I think when the market resolved your balance shouldn't have gone up or down at all.
@jack I got an email saying my outcome was -$229 (-$228 + -$1 payout) though my bets here still says I made $228 profit. My bets in that market were also YES so it resolved the way I was betting, though I closed my position before the market closed. So just to clarify, and I appreciate you talking this through with me, if I had kept it open my YES until resolution, I would have at least gotten my share of that liquidity I provided back alongside the others who held YES to resolution? But otherwise I was essentially burning the liquidity because it was as good as a bet against consensus?
@BTE Did it say "Your investment was M$ -229." ? That's what I get when I made a profit buying and selling and ended up selling more M$ than I bought - it means I locked in $229 profits from buying and selling. Then the second number "Your payout is M$ 0." is how much additional you got when the market resolved. (This is super confusing and I already reported it as a bug earlier.)
> So just to clarify, and I appreciate you talking this through with me, if I had kept it open my YES until resolution, I would have at least gotten my share of that liquidity I provided back alongside the others who held YES to resolution?
Hmm, sort of I guess? But if you sold your YES at close to $1 then that also counts as getting your money back just as much as holding the YES to resolution.
> But otherwise I was essentially burning the liquidity because it was as good as a bet against consensus?
Yeah, when you put in liquidity you should basically think of that money as burned, in most cases.
@BTE Hmm sounds like a bug or rounding issue to me. All trading is calculated with real numbers, and then rounded in the display. The payout shows Math.floor(payout) which means if your payout was like -0.00001 (due to some rounding and floating-point math) then it would end up displaying is M$-1 (but that's just what is shown in the email, the actual payout is still basically $0). That's my best guess, I did some tests to try to reproduce it but wasn't able to so far.
@jack yeah email said M$-1. Hmm. I wish it was easy to share screenshots with each other because now that I am looking at other people’s bets I am finding lots of bugs. Where do I report?
@ScottLawrence Hahaha. I though about putting a lower target volume that would be easier to hit given the initial liquidity incentives and fees. But thought this might be just hard enough to make it an interesting experiment.
Thank you for betting no and providing the incentive for others tho ;)
@GeorgeVii I feel a little bad for consistently betting against you---but I'm sure you understand. Fake internet points must come first!
@ScottLawrence Oh, good ser! I am quite content for you to continue giving me your internet points; For I am on a mission from God!
You can chose to follow me triumphantly, your very own Kwisatz Haderach, or be lead as a sheep to slaughter (as Jack unfortunately found himself https://manifold.markets/Richard/will-outstanding-net-bets-on-this-m)
I shall warn you thus only once.
Do not betray me for 30 silver coins ;)