Will Manifold deem me unworthy of a "Trustworthy. Ish." badge by the end of 2023?
81
315
1.6k
resolved May 6
Resolved
YES

This only counts Manifold deciding to take it away from me personally. It does not count Manifold choosing to remove the "Trustworthy. Ish." badge from all traders, or reword the general criteria that badge-holders must meet, nor a bug that makes it not display on my profile, or anything like that.

If I ask Manifold to take away the badge, that also does not count. It must be Manifold's descision.

If I'm banned from the platform, that counts to resolve this to YES.

Get Ṁ600 play money

🏅 Top traders

#NameTotal profit
1Ṁ2,233
2Ṁ1,587
3Ṁ1,125
4Ṁ601
5Ṁ391
Sort by:
predicted YES

Why are people buying NO? Manifold decided to take away the badge. That's sufficient for a YES resolution.

predicted NO

@firstuserhere see Isaac's response to Gurkenlas

bought Ṁ100 of YES

@ahalekelly what about it? It's not a coincidence that he's the only person affected, it's a decision taken by manifold. "This only counts Manifold deciding to take it away from me personally."

predicted YES

@firstuserhere I don't think there's any confusion here. It's clearly under "If it seems like it was targeted directly towards my past actions, then that will be sufficient to resolve the market to YES."

bought Ṁ10 of NO

@firstuserhere I think the alt account policy was crystallized before it was revealed that Isaac had an army of them, actually in response to his concerns about their use in WvM.

predicted NO

@xyz So that "rewording of the general criteria" would not have been targeted directly towards his past actions.

bought Ṁ1,000 of YES

@firstuserhere Surprised they said the quiet part out loud, that their long-term business model "will rely on whales making large purchases...."

predicted YES

@Jason I imagine they mean "Some company wants to buy $100k of advertising on Manifold, or running a prediction market tournament and subsidizing 100 markets with $100 each, or selling an enterprise variant to businesses to run internal prediction markets, or [...]"

Not "People trying to win self-referential whalebait markets".

@Mira In my view, none of those glosses are really consistent with the common connotation of "whale" or the context of the sentence. Few would call, e.g., a corporate advertiser on Twitter, a corporation subsidizing certain website content, or a corporation paying for a custom in-house version of a technology a whale.

Moreover, the context implies that the monetization model is at least somewhat Issac-like, involving people spending large amounts of money to trade on markets. The statement makes little sense if you delete "will rely on whales making large purchases" and replace with "will rely on corporations giving us lots of money for promotions or internal use."

predicted YES

This can be resolved

would this resolve yes if they publicly declare you unworthy of the badge, but still let you keep it for whatever reason?

predicted NO

@DesTiny No, they have to actually remove it.

What if they reword the general criteria to frown upon the strategies you in particular use, leading to the badge to be removed from only you?

predicted NO

@Gurkenglas If it seems like it was targeted directly towards my past actions, then that will be sufficient to resolve the market to YES.

If it's somehow just a coincidence that I'm the only person affected, then that will not resolve this to YES.

predicted YES
predicted YES

/Courtney/isaacking-and-destiny-together-mani-42332c90e971 arbitrage, and also if you don't trust Isaac you might prefer to bet in that market.

predicted NO

@MartinRandall I don't really trust that creator though. Ideally an impartial third party could make a market on this.

predicted NO

Is Manifold Markets account the best bet for this?

predicted NO

@Alana I'm not sure what the question is, sorry.

predicted NO

@IsaacKing Isomorphically: Which accounts would you propose as impartial third parties?

predicted NO

@Alana I think I'd trust anyone who currently has a trustworthy badge. :)

predicted NO
bought Ṁ121 of NO

@Alana I'd also trust you.

bought Ṁ10 of YES

Ok, I made it for you all - made two, since the two markets above have different deadlines.

predicted YES

tl;dr: Market manipulation in general is considered ok if the manipulation itself isn't directly harmful. But manipulating profit fraudulently is considered harmful and against the rules. This specific case is pushing the boundaries of what is allowed and probably should not be allowed in the future, in my opinion.

Taking action to cause a market to resolve a certain way (aka market manipulation) has a long record of being considered fair game (obviously assuming that the manipulation isn't directly harmful). Examples:

There is definitely a spectrum of how much these questions are supposed to be about acting to change the metric vs predicting on the metric without trying to change it. As I said earlier, manipulations that are directly harmful are bad, but even non-harmful manipulations might not be in the spirit of a market if the market was trying to measure a quantity, not change the quantity.

In this specific example, the metric being manipulated was a user's profit. Manipulating profit fraudulently is considered against community norms and against the rules (the admins can and have taken action against such abuses), but what counts as fraudulent might be subject to some debate, and I think this particular case isn't clear-cut. I think it's definitely pushing the boundaries, and I wouldn't do it myself, and I'd also prefer that the community agrees not to do explicit profit manipulation like this again in the future, but I wouldn't necessarily sanction people for doing it this time.

predicted NO

@jack I don't think it's currently against the rules, but I'd be in favor of new rules being added to make such things illegal.

predicted YES

@IsaacKing I agree, that is also my interpretation of the rules.

predicted NO

But manipulating profit fraudulently is considered harmful and against the rules.

Oh, I thought you did?

predicted YES

but what counts as fraudulent might be subject to some debate, and I think this particular case isn't clear-cut

Also I suspect the community norms regard this profit manipulation as bad even if it isn't against the official manifold rules.

predicted YES

The rules say that using multiple pf one's own accounts to manipulate profits is not allowed. As far as I can tell, the rules do not address gifting other people profit, and I think there are many cases where that should be allowed.

predicted YES

Also, fwiw, I didn't previously think of the fact that manipulating a market on someone's profit might be particularly bad because profit manipulation in general is bad, and I'm guessing the manipulators didn't either, so I don't think their intentions were worse compared to on other market manipulations. Maybe the fact that profit was being manipulated here isn't the most relevant aspect.

Comment hidden