Each answer on this market should be the name of a user who creates a significant number of public markets.
When this market closes, I will select to win all answers that are for a user who has resolved no markets dishonorably in between this market's creation and close. (Any markets resolved dishonorably prior to this market's creation don't count.) The dishonorable market must also have closed after this market began.
For the purposes of determining what counts as a dishonorable resolution, I will go by @MattP's judgement, unless there's a community consensus that I should not do so. (For example if there are concerns that @MattP resolved one of their own markets incorrectly, or @MattP has become inactive.) In that case I'll use my judgement instead. (If there's a community consensus I'll defer to that; my personal judgement will only enter into it if the community can't agree.)
A late resolution doesn't count as dishonorable until the creator has been reminded at least once after the market closed and still hasn't resolved the market. If a market meets that criterion, it counts as a "dishonorable resolution", even though it never actually resolved. (e.g. if someone just leaves their market open forever and never resolves it, that's still dishonorable for the purposes of my market.)
Any answer that isn't the name of a user is invalid. If the same user is submitted multiple times, only the one that was added first is valid. Any user who was not activly creating markets at some point in between this market's open and close dates is also invalid. (Otherwise it's easy to win M$ by betting on a user who never creates any markets.)
I'm also making myself an invalid answer, because if I didn't, selection bias would lead to my trustworthiness being overrepresented. (People who don't trust me won't want to bet in my markets, so the only people betting here are ones who do trust me.)
This market structure makes it hard to bet against a particular user if you don't trust them. I see that as a feature rather than a bug; it means there's little incentive for creators to resolve their own markets dishonorably, since they can't turn a profit here by doing so.
If any market creator wants to convince others of their trustworthiness, they can stake M$ on themselves here to prove it. (Effectively putting up collateral against a dishonorable resolution.)
Related questions
🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ479 | |
| 2 | Ṁ271 | |
| 3 | Ṁ146 | |
| 4 | Ṁ116 | |
| 5 | Ṁ112 |
@Dustin The old free response markets (Parimutuel) are terrible for that reason. But the new free response markets solve that and it works great now!
I think you misunderstood the way the market was intended to work. It isn't "each selected answer resolves to 100%". It is "resolves equally to each selected answer, i.e. 100%/n". This was a very common source of confusion, unfortunately.
But now there is a new market format that solves that too!
@Dustin You're not just predicting, you're buying future payouts and did the equivalent of paying more than M1 for a M1 payout. It is true that @IsaacKing didn't specify how the shared liquidity pool was going to be partitioned, so any partitioning(including 99% Mira) would be allowed.
How did you think the shared liquidity pool was going to be partitioned?
@Dustin It doesn't, but it says "I will select to win all answers that are for a user who has resolved no markets dishonorably" and at the time the market was created, the resolution for a free response market always has to add up to 100%. Now there is a new option that lets you resolve each answer independently, but at the time that was not possible.
It's unfortunately a common misunderstanding, and it's very good that we have a new market type that avoids that!
@Mira I definitely believed that if I invested in an honorable member of the community and the resolution included that member, I would at least have a return equal to what was invested. Anything else is not predicting anything other than how many answers will be selected.
@Dustin That's not how this market is priced. You're buying a share of the eventual payout from a pool shared across all answers. Buying Jack up to 40% sort of implies there are only 2-3 trustworthy creators on all of Manifold, such that Jack would probably get 50% of the pool. So you were implicitly betting that dozens of other people would be "dishonorable" and that didn't happen.
If it worked like you think, most of the options would've been 90%+. So you should've been suspicious that everybody had numbers less than 7%.
@Dustin At the time you placed your bet, that was the only way that multiple-choice markets could be resolved, and nearly all regular users of the site were aware of that. I agree that was not an ideal system, and I'm glad we now have a better multiple-choice structure for questions like these.
This is a recurring problem on Manifold. Someone will do something weird and experimental, like this market, relying on the serious users to understand the dynamics at play. But the newer and less frequent users may misunderstand what's going on and lose mana on it, which is bad for popularization and mass-market appeal.
Maybe we should have a "power user only" tag for markets, and hide any market with that tag from people who haven't opted into it? Would include both experimental new things and also older features that were grandfathered in, like numeric and DPM markets.
Users disqualified for dishonorable resolution (including late resolution):
Dr P
Austin
ManifoldMarkets
Predictor
Destiny/Wobbles
Gigacasting
Users disqualified for not existing:
Me :)
Subsidy
Users disqualified for being a duplicate:
@DanMan314
The other 31 people seem to have been honorable, though I only looked through Jack's "incorrectly resolved" group and didn't check every single market of theirs. (Notably this may have missed late resolutions, which do count as dishonorable for the purposes of this market.) If there are any dishonorably resolved markets I missed, or other points on which you disagree, please point them out now. Tagging @MattP in particular, but anyone can raise a disagreement.
@IsaacKing I think Scott Alexander and Metaculus Bot have both been considered "late" at various points.
@IsaacKing I feel like when I was betting I had the expectation that all answers would be resolved to an equal percentage (this could be wrong, given I bet like 8 months ago). Any particular reason why Jack was resolved to 53 and the rest were resolved to ~2?
@IsaacKing I unresolved it. Can you solve again now? If not, then give me the list and I'll resolve it
@BTE Permanent markets are meaningless, there's nothing keeping them connected to reality. If I think you're untrustworthy I should still bet YES in your permanent market if I think other people are also going to bet YES in the future.
Better would be markets that last a few months/years and then resolve based on community consensus.