This market resolves YES if either of the following are true:
Any market creator with at least 500 total traders behaves in a way that seems dishonest or likely to point towards dishonorable behavior.
Any market creator with at least 500 total traders is employed at a business that gets a substantial portion of its revenue from the sale or cultivation of fish or fish-related products. (Aquatic fish only.)
Related questions
🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ219 | |
| 2 | Ṁ35 | |
| 3 | Ṁ29 | |
| 4 | Ṁ21 | |
| 5 | Ṁ14 |
I'm really disappointed it looks like this is going to resolve as per the first bullet point rather than the second.
Levi Finkelstein's rigged markets should resolve this YES
Oracle of Osaka's misresolved markets should also resolve this YES, they literally got banned that's how bad it was
@ShadowyZephyr Agreed. To make it easy to find the proof, here's a link to just one of the markets:
https://manifold.markets/oracleofosaka/going-hiking-tomorrow-will-i-encoun
Changing the resolution of this and a few other markets to N/A as they are being used to funnel profit to @alby and go against our community guidelines.
And https://manifold.markets/oracleofosaka?tab=markets shows 596 traders, therefore satisfying the criteria.
You coordinated hundreds of users’ api keys to bet on your markets in order to farm bonuses. This is very fishy activity
@ian Does it seem dishonest or likely to point towards dishonorable behavior?
@IsaacKing It does seem dishonest, though forgiveable due to the stress of the situation and the fact that you reported the vulnerability.
@ian Are you using "dishonest" as a synonym for "unethical" here? Or is there a specific statement I made that you don't think was honest?
@IsaacKing I guess if I were to take the word dishonest at face value, those people whose api keys you used were not honestly betting on your markets, you were making them bet.
@ian And what's dishonest about that? I was very up front about that fact. If I'm going on holiday and I ask a friend to keep betting for me on my account, is that dishonest?
Is “substantial proportion” based on percentage of fishy business, total fishy revenue, or something else?
For example, USA Today includes Amazon as one of the best places to purchase outdoor gear, which would include fishing equipment.
@JimHays Nah, that's too general purpose. Fishyness has to be a large fraction. Not sure what's reasonable, maybe 50%?
@IsaacKing So Bass Pro Shops would probably not count, but American Fishing Tackle Co would be included? Does that seem about right?
@JimHays I don't know anything about either of those businesses, but if the name is fishy and walking in I would immediately see a lot of fishy stuff, I think that should count.
Related questions
