Includes any market in the group. (Only if it should actually be there.) Ignores markets that seem like they aren't going to resolve any time soon, or that would cause a paradox.
1,000
3.00🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ360 | |
| 2 | Ṁ193 | |
| 3 | Ṁ145 | |
| 4 | Ṁ38 | |
| 5 | Ṁ10 |
I mean, if you count Isaac's army of 120 API keys, it's already occurred: https://manifold.markets/IsaacKing/will-austin-beat-marty-dettmann-in
I counted it on https://manifold.markets/IsaacKing/will-any-other-user-overtake-memest-87e28abdf73a, so I guess I should count it here?
@IsaacKing Yeah, it's the number that's listed on the market, so I think it makes sense? Although I'm now biased from my newly acquired YES shares
@Odoacre No, Manifold had stated that paying real people to create an account on your behalf was allowed.
@Odoacre Well, the idea is that they effectively authorized Isaac to trade on their behalf
@Odoacre I think it was probably against the spirit of the rules but in line with their text. Isaac was pretty good at that :)
@Odoacre Yes, that was one of Manifold's stated reasons for removing my badge. And that's why I quit the site, because I'm not interested in sticking around if I'm going to be punished for their own inability to write rules that reflect what they actually mean.
@Conflux Yeah, because it's strictly easier to resolve YES than one of the "will this market get at least 50 traders" markets, and those can get to 50 relatively easily. But its title lacked the memetic power to get there.