Alright, next month's market is up. This time I'm going to just ask Manifold to tell me what features they liked, which should hopefully avoid the bad dynamics in December's market where they couldn't be bet very far apart since they'd all resolve the same way if not N/A.

congrats on the funding!

What does this checkbox do? I have clicked "Add" on a few markets that I would like to see in a dashboard, but checking/unchecking the dashboard checkboxes doesn't seem to show or hide these or others.

@BoltonBailey Good suggestion, I'll do that. Your dashboard is just a custom list of markets you can view. Looks like it's broken ATM, sorry about that.

What about opening markets in a new tab instead of replacing the current search tab?

@bohaska Can't people just middle-click for that?

I hadn’t remembered seeing this but earlier I played around with your dashboard and I had this thought that it would be nice to have this kind of control

Has anyone ever used the mixed sort option? I'm considering removing it.

We're on Github! Feel free to submit new features and/or point out just how terribly the current ones are implemented.

https://github.com/KingSupernova31/manifold-search

Dark mode

I’ll advise people to read the resolution criteria carefully, bc all the options seem, to me, much more highly correlated than some bettors imply by their bets (i could be wrong)

in fact that may be a weakness of this market format; if a feature increases funding rate by 5%, which is huge, does that not mean someone betting on it over another wellpriced option can only really make 5% returns?

@TheBayesian Yeah this market structure is a little weird, I wanted to see how it would go. I think the incentives are still correct though? It's positive EV to bet to your credence on each option individually, taking into account for Kelly considerations that all options that resolve are going to resolve in the same direction.

I'm open to alternative market structures for next month. All I want is some way to have option probabilities reflect their usefulness, so that I have an invisible-hand-approved ordering on which features I should prioratize.

@IsaacKing The incentives are correct but much weaker, I think. Like if any one option won’t ever change the probabilities by over 10%, that means nobody can make over 10% returns in expectation by betting on the better options? Which is tiny considering opportunity costs etc. But it certainly works, probably is unintuitive to ppl and imo an option being at 27% and one being at 79% is unrealistic for example, and I can’t think rn of a strictly better structure.

@TheBayesian I think strongly differing percentages are fine? As a simple example, the answer of "make the site do literally everything that anyone would want it to do, using this library I provide for free that takes you 5 minutes to implement" should be at ~100%, and the answer of "change this completely irrelevant thing that will take you weeks of work and prevent you from having any time to work on the other options" should be at the base rate of 30% or whatever.

But wait, I've realized a problem; people have to update on what other options I'm likely to implement and what they'll cause. If that 100% option from above were to be added as an answer, then obviously I'll implement it, which makes the probability that the project gets $500 nearly 100%, which means that all the other options can be bet up that high too.

So this market structure works in a vacuum, but as soon as my decisions of what to implement are based on the probabilities here, it breaks horribly.

Hey @jack, you're really good at thinking about market incentives; any ideas on how to accomplish what I want here?

I think the core problem is the strong correlation, so we need to break that. Maybe something like "which answers, if implemented, will lead Austin to cite that specific feature as a positive?" But then they should all be near 0...

earlier for example, I saw stuff get funded on manifund which updated me on the likelihood that you get funding, and so I bought up every option a bunch, and per question I could probably make 30% profit in expectation (unless I’m misjudging the situation), whereas I didn’t bother making sure the bets were in the same order they previously were in, bc the alpha in deciding that one is a few % higher than another is tiny. The question of whether an option will resolve YES/NO or NA, bc NA increases the opportunity cost, is a higher concern on my mind if anything. So yeah the incentives are right but the incentive for ‘find % chance of getting funding, and buy til that % for the options that are likely to be implemented’ takes up such a big part of the market price for each option that differentiating the relative value of each feature is tiny (but maybe this is rude to say and I don’t mean to be rude, so I will still reread the options and move them a bit to still be informative for the purpose of your decisions)

Tagging @Ernie and @RobertCousineau as you've been two of the most interested people. I would love to get your input on what I should focus on!

@IsaacKing graphic improvement for scanning, plus sparklines plus clear tools to compare between markets

Ability to see which markets I hold already and how much

@Ernie Submit those as answers!