If any non-bot participant placs one or more bets on YES that total more than Ṁ20, I reserve the right to resolve the market to either N/A or to NO, in whatever way best punishes the user(s) who placed those invalid bets.
All my markets of this type with various maximum mana investments:
🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ14 | |
| 2 | Ṁ9 | |
| 3 | Ṁ7 | |
| 4 | Ṁ3 | |
| 5 | Ṁ3 |
Basic scripted API check results – no guarantees, but it passes sanity checks. Bots and NO (net) positions were filtered out, and only YES accounted. How much mana did each group bet in total:
`valid YES bets?` `how much at stake`
<lgl> <dbl>
1 TRUE 571.How many people are on each side:
`valid YES bets?` `how many people`
<lgl> <int>
1 TRUE 35Transgressors (none):
character(0)Likewise, @IsaacKing, this one seems easy – ready to resolve YES, because no one broke the rules.
@yaboi69 Nope, Alex Rockwell and Courier Six both broke the rules, but they also both sold out at a loss, so I agree this can safely resolve YES.
Alright, here's what seems fairest to me:
Get a list of everyone who placed invalid bets on YES.
Check to see how much mana those users would collectively lose from a YES or NO resolution. If they would lose the most from a NO resolution, then:
Get a list of everyone who did not place any invalid bets on YES.
Check to see how much those users would collectively lose from a NO resolution.
If the invalid bettors would lose more than the valid bettors, resolve to NO.
Otherwise, resolve to YES.
However, that also seems like it would take a lot of work. I'd have to write a script to download the trading history, calculate who placed invalid bets and how much they stand to lose each way. I don't want to lose several hours to this, so I'm also thinking about doing something simpler like just resolving to YES. (Which is allowed per the description.)
Thoughts?
