If any non-bot participant placs one or more bets on YES that total more than Ṁ1, 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 | Ṁ102 | |
| 2 | Ṁ11 | |
| 3 | Ṁ11 | |
| 4 | Ṁ5 | |
| 5 | Ṁ2 |
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 FALSE 50
2 TRUE 28.0How many people are on each side:
`valid YES bets?` `how many people`
<lgl> <int>
1 FALSE 4
2 TRUE 30Transgressors:
"cos" "Degerzith" "Dorothy Green" "Unconditional Probability"Not sure what conclusions to draw here. @IsaacKing. I mildly lean toward NO, because individual losses of compliant ones are pretty insignificant, even if they’re more numerous.
@yaboi69 Your results are missing moneylab. I think your script is failing to account for everyone who currently holds no shares in either direction?
@IsaacKing For all these markets collectively, what about a solution where you check if the “cost” of harming good-faith participants outweighs the “benefit” of punishment. E.g., avoid “NO” if total losses of compliant participants > total losses of transgressors.
@yaboi69 Hmm, that seems reasonable. There are only 28 validly-held YES shares among non-bot users in this market, so I think it should still resolve to NO under that interpretation. (While I'm not trying to punish the bots, I'm not particularly inclined to reward them either.)
