resolves to
No if at least once greater or equal to 90%
Otherwise Yes
🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ1,947 | |
| 2 | Ṁ341 | |
| 3 | Ṁ212 | |
| 4 | Ṁ138 | |
| 5 | Ṁ135 |
@ChadwickMiller Yeah it is because of an event from the beginning. After that the description has been changed but the market not resolved, showing that that event didn't count. I already reported the question and you can do too. Just read the comment below from @A to understand why someone thought it was a good idea to resolve this as NO.
@ChadwickMiller The limit order was at 90 and it was partially filled, therefore the price must have reached exactly 90. It would need to be fully filled in order for the price to go above 90, but as specified in the clarification exactly 90 was sufficient. (I originally asked for that clarification because I just wanted to know whether to put my limit orders at 90 or 91 -- I was just as surprised as anyone to see it happen right after I asked about it!)
And just to be clear -- most of the delay between me noticing the trade at 90 and posting about it was because it took me some time to collect 100% solid evidence of it (finding exactly the right spot on the graph to zoom in, verifying using the API, etc -- those are tricky to do from a phone).
@A sorry but I disagree here. An offer at 90 by definition means the price is below 90.
@ChadwickMiller If you price at midpoint maybe so, but manifold always shows price of the market as the price of the last trade, not based on outstanding limit orders. In this case the last trade executed at multiple prices so Manifold essentially divides those up into separate transactions and uses the last transaction executed, which was at exactly 90.
Plus the AMM provides continuous liquidity at every price, so arguably the midpoint would be equal to the last price anyways.
@A I agree that using trade price is reasonable. Why not just say that from the beginning
@ChadwickMiller Ah okay, I think we agree then -- yeah I was implicitly referring to trade price, I suppose I should've been more explicit. Probably the original market description should've been a bit more precise too but it's not my market so I can't help that :)
Well this has been fun but I think it's enough now. The price already reached 90 (momentarily) right after the clarification was posted that reaching exactly 90 was sufficient to resolve NO. Therefore this can resolve NO.
You can verify the below screenshot in a few different ways:
On the market graph, zoom in to August 7th, 3:24 pm Central Time (make sure to apply the appropriate offset if you're in a different time zone).
Via API view the trade that occured at that time which has probAfter=90 (I can post more detailed instructions for this a bit later if needed).
I have a limit order NO at 90 which was partially filled which is why I got notified of this.
@A I confirmed your claim via the API and found the trade with "probAfter": 0.9000000000000001. Therefore I resolve this market to NO.
Sorry for not finding this earlier, but I relied on the "trades" tab where it did not show a 90% probability. Just after your hint I was able to confirm via API
Thanks everyone for the fun 😂
Yeah at one point it did show up in the trades tab, but now it seems like Manifold is glitching and won't let you scroll that far back in the trade history anymore. That part is a bit unfortunate -- if someone specifically checked the full trade history before betting and didn't see it there, let me know.
There's a Sell wall at or around 90 percent of about 6000 mana.
@HelmutWimmer it will resolve to NO once it hits exactly 90. that fits best to the title
@JohnBrown The markets only show whole percentages until 95% or so. And the description says "above" and not "below" so I have no Idea what you mean.
@LeonBohnmann I know there is a little inconsistency in there between the title and the description, therefore I will resolve to no at exactly 90. or at least the next time i visit the market after it happened
@LeonBohnmann The question asks “Will this market at all times stay below 90%?” The resolution statement introduces the ambiguity, which has since been addressed. My use of decimals was simply to illustrate the point that “below” does not mean “equal”. Fair enough?
@JohnBrown Okay, and I only wanted to point out that the description contradicts the title, which still is the case. But the comments now say that the title counts, not the description
@HelmutWimmer Can you please update the description to indicate that if the market price was ever greater to or equal to 90% then the market will resolve no?