By the end of 2023, will there be a serious market that had a >=99% swing in under 5 minutes?
52
781
1K
resolved Jul 18
Resolved
YES

Includes resolutions even if no one corrected the market beforehand. (As long as the resolution was accurate.)

For example:

  • A market that was at <=1% and then resolved YES.

  • A market that was at >=99.5% and then was suddenly bet down to <=0.5%, and remains at <=0.5% for several days, or resolves to NO shortly afterwards.

Only counts binary markets. Does not include any market with less than 10 traders at the time of the swing. Does not include any market with a structure designed to make this happen. (Like the creator offering to pay back all the traders or something like that.) Does not include someone spiking the market and it being corrected shortly afterwards. Does not count incorrect resolutions. Does not include any swings that occurrred before this market was created. (Though if this has already happened I'd still like to know about it.)

Markets on various swing sizes:

Get Ṁ1,000 play money

🏅 Top traders

#NameTotal profit
1Ṁ804
2Ṁ178
3Ṁ132
4Ṁ97
5Ṁ50
Sort by:

Would someone mind confirming via the API that the linked market was actually <1% at close?

@IsaacKing API has been disabled afaik, during the recent outage

Ok, later then.

@IsaacKing please resolve

@firstuserhere No? The market is at 99.1% but it didn’t start from 0.1%, so it’s not a 99% swing as defined

predicted YES

@AdriaGarrigaAlonso See my comment below. It's about the monkeypox market, not this one.

bought Ṁ900 of YES

This already happened in March.

predicted YES

@jskf Note the resolution criteria and the comments. Resolution was not disputed.

@jskf There were only 9 positions at the time of the swing. Does 10 traders mean 10 unique traders? That seems like the most logical interpretation. Just pointing this out though.

predicted YES

@ShadowyZephyr The criteria state "Does not include any market with less than 10 traders at the time of the swing." The market itself states that is has "10 traders" in the UI. No one could have traded on it after it resolved. Interpreting "traders" as "active positions", when there is literally something in the UI called "traders" would be rather odd, in my view. If anyone does think it's ambiguous, I would still argue it should be resolved in my favor, because my interpretation is definitely reasonable, and "at least 10 traders" is clearly there to exclude some uninteresting cases. It's not a core part of the thing being predicted.

@jskf I agree,I just wanted to point it out so Isaac can make an informed decision

predicted YES

@ShadowyZephyr I agree that it is very important that Isaac makes an informed decision, so I will additionally point out that @ShadowyZephyr and I are in the same league, and this market switched our rankings.

@jskf True, that’s how I noticed. Although I’m not disagreeing with you lol. I agree with your interpretation.

Id rather point it out before one of the NO bettors tried to lawyer this point.

predicted YES

@IsaacKing now that you have been thoroughly informed, please resolve in my favor so I can pay back my loan and will not go into crippling debt.

bought Ṁ30 of NO

@jskf [Retracted]

I'm a little confused, what is the argument about the number of traders? Is the UI number of 10 incorrect?

@IsaacKing "Does not include any market with less than 10 traders at the time of the swing." 10 is not less than 10

@firstuserhere Right, that's the point. I'm confused why anyone would think the condition has not been met, and I'm asking for clarification.

@IsaacKing The condition has been met, I was just pointing out there were only 9 positions.

I was confused about the fact that there has been an example for months and no one has pointed it out, and I figured maybe that's why, because people misinterpreted what the question meant?

@ShadowyZephyr Oh, I see. No, I meant total unique traders.

@IsaacKing So, resolves YES.

@ShadowyZephyr Not until I can confirm that the swing was actually >=99%.

sold Ṁ1,998 of YES

Edit: It was at 0.7% when it resolved, Jack bet it down to 0.7%, so it counts right?

@ShadowyZephyr How do you know?

@IsaacKing The final trade before it resolved to YES. From description, "A market that was at <=1% and then resolved YES."

bought Ṁ20 of NO

@firstuserhere

Seems definitive to me.