Is there something weird going on between Mira and firstuserhere?
20
455
αΉ€272
2025
20%
chance

@Mira has taken very large positions in several of firstuserhere's markets. In three of them, Mira's position is against firstuserhere themselves. All of these are personal markets that firstuserhere has a significant amount of control over, so this seems unwise.

/firstuserhere/will-firstuserhere-walk-100000-step

/firstuserhere/will-firstuserhere-coauthor-a-neuri

/firstuserhere/will-firstuserhere-lose-9-kgs-20-lb

/firstuserhere/will-firstuserhere-break-the-265-da

I also remember a comment Mira made a long time ago where they claimed that firstuserhere was an alt account of theirs, though that may have been intended as a joke. (I can't easily find it again.)

Firstuserhere has indeed been accused of having multiple alts, and who did that accusation come from? Mira!

Looking through Mira's portfolio, they frequently take positions that large, but usually only on non-manipulable markets; firstuserhere's markets seem to be the only personal ones in which Mira has invested >M$20,000, with the exception of Galen's /galen/will-i-submit-my-phd-thesis-for-exa

It seems entirely plausible to me that Mira just trusts firstuserhere to not manipulate those markets, and is betting normally. Indeed, Mira being the one to bring up the evidence for firstuserhere's alts seems like something that they would not have done if they were in cahoots. (But then again, if Mira legitimetly discovered subterfuge from firstuserhere, why trust them to not manipulate their personal markets?)

Basically, there are a lot of odd things that I notice involving those two accounts, and I don't have a good explanation. If they were the same person or otherwise "teaming up", I'd expect to see different behavior, as there would be better ways to turn a profit. But if they were entirely different unrelated people, I would not expect to see these sorts of bets either. I really have no idea what the deal is here.

This market resolves YES if strong evidence emerges that, in a general sense, "I'm onto something". (Note that a more pedestrian agreement between the two, such as to manipulate a whalebait market in a way that's unrelated to anything I said above, does not count.) I would like to be able to bet here despite the subjectivity, so if there's significant disagreement with my proposed resolution, I'll defer to a community vote.

(And to be clear, none of what I'm suggesting (except the alts thing if that happened) is in any way unethical, and this market is not meant to indicate disapproval of them or their actions. I just want to know so that I can appropriately limit my risk, and complain I wasn't included in their evil plan. πŸ˜‰)

Get αΉ€200 play money

Related questions

Sort by:

I enjoyed reading this post. Sadly there is nothing going on here. There is a big age gap between them and their writing style is very very very different.

bought αΉ€100 of NO

@Soli Yep, 10 years

I take what I said back. It looks interesting πŸ€”

You dirty bastards

Hmmmmmmm and what proof do we have that you aren’t one of their alts creating this market to squash such discussion by coming to a profitable conclusion in the comments? We have no proof, comrade, none at all…

Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

@Broseph Make a market on it!

@IsaacKing broseth is obviously just another Mira alt (and so am I)

Mira and firstuserhere have now both mysteriously left the Manifold discord.

predicts NO

@IsaacKing lol, I've not been in the discord for about 1.5 months? I think. (Other than 1 day a few days ago when I joined to advertise /firstuserhere/openai-devday-predictions )

@firstuserhere Ah, I see. Looks like you left after October 4th, rejoined on November 4th to send a few messages, then left again.

Mira is also the top No better on my recently opened Jane Street acceptance personal market.

I think this all makes sense - people open these markets to motivate themselves, and so are willing to buy Yes with a premium, making it wise to buy No.

bought αΉ€10 of NO

I go where the money is. Most markets don't have that much money in them, so you can't bet large amounts even if you wanted to.

If @IsaacKing puts an order up at 50% that he's going to get a paper in NeurIPS or ICML, I'd probably take that for M100k too. It doesn't matter what the stakes are or how much you want it - you probably won't be able to make publishable research even if you want to. And I believe it's considered academic fraud to bribe your name onto a paper making minimal contributions.

predicts NO

@Mira I wonder if I put up a 10k mana limit order at 10% for buying NO on this market, whether you'd buy YES

It case it wasn't obvious, I'll ignore new collusion to manipulate this market.

bought αΉ€100 of NO

I'd reckon a big reason is that my markets are heavily subsidized + I've put in a large amount of limit orders at prices which the market deems acceptable, making them attractive to trade in

sold αΉ€23 of NO

@firstuserhere Oh, that's a very good point. The subsidies are still significantly less than the betting amounts, but your policy of generously subsidizing your personal markets leads to increased interest, which increases the effective liquidity by more than the subsidy amount.

Then again, most of Mira's bets are against you, and I'd be pretty nervous doing such a thing myself even at 50%.

predicts NO

@IsaacKing I think Alex's comments here are a good illustration. The base rates are way lower. The market is at more than double the base rates. It's not going to resolve for about a year at least in which time you can recover the amounts invested via loans and if one is going to trade there, it just doesn't make much sense to put mana on YES (unless you're me)