If any non-bot participant placs one or more bets on YES that total more than Ṁ10, 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:
1,000
3.00Basic 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 321.How many people are on each side:
`valid YES bets?` `how many people`
<lgl> <int>
1 TRUE 36Transgressors (none):
character(0)This one seems easy IMO – you can resolve YES without any extra considerations because no one broke the rules. This is in line with the results of your verification.
@IsaacKing I was going with the “can’t hold more than $10 after the market closes” interpretation. The way I calculated it was fallible, but it worked here, or am I wrong? Did someone end with more than $10 bet on YES?
(No real need to answer, if there’s a next time I’ll scrap and redo it all.)
@yaboi69 Quite a few people ended up holding more than 10 YES shares, but that's not what the title was about. The limit was on how much mana could be spent on YES, not how much could be won.
Lauro Langosco placed an invalid YES bet. They've since sold all their YES shares, but that doesn't mean their invalid bet doesn't matter, because if they had purchased NO I'd have had more incentive to resolve YES to punish them. And also if they had sold out of their YES at a profit, I could resolve N/A to punish them instead.
@IsaacKing (It being about $10 not 10 shares was clear. With the other part, I strongly gravitated to one particular interpretation, and that generated some confusion here and elsewhere. Thanks!)
It being about $10 not 10 shares was clear.
Agreed, my title was poor. I think almost everybody understood what I meant though, because otherwise clicking the M$10 quickbet arrow would immediately result in an illegal position. Many users don't even know enough about market math to know how many shares they'll get for placing a certain bet, or know how shares work.
If we used the "you can't hold more than 10 YES shares" interpretation, then every single person who bought YES on this market did so illegally. (Except Acceleration.)
A quick glance over the trades tab makes it appear that the only rule-breaker was Lauro Langosco, who no longer holds shares in this market. If they had sold out at a profit I could punish them by resolving N/A, but they actually sold at a loss for some reason, so there's no need for an N/A resolution. As such, it looks like this market can safely resolve YES.
It's very possible I missed someone who placed multiple bets on YES that were individually M$10 or less but put together became invalid. If that happened it may change my desired resolution, so let me know if you notice anyone who did that. (Even if they sold out later.)
