This market is automated. Bet at your own risk. I, the president of the United States of America, am not responsible for your losses, nor will I look at your comments in which you complian about Mr. Vance's resolutions.
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Trader | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ1,012 | |
| 2 | Ṁ1 | |
| 3 | Ṁ1 | |
| 4 | Ṁ1 | |
| 5 | Ṁ1 |
People are also trading
If the market had specified the resolution source, then I might've argued for an N/A resolution due to the title and description contradicting each other. But in this case there was no contradiction so there's no choice but to resolve YES. The thing described happened.
Side note / beating my usual drum: Resolving N/A without a principled -- not just good-sounding -- reason is bad. It allows scamminess where people try to get away with these shenanigans ("it's an automated market using a broken API"). They bet against the spirit of the question knowing that either they'll get away with it or at worst unwind all trades. Basically it's stealing from honest traders, in expectation. (Again, see my screed for why it's wrong to say "but we returned everyone's money, no harm no foul".)
@Eliza FTR my take is even more strict. I'll repost an abbreviation of what I said in the private mod chat for users to see:
I agree with this final result, but the argument that a broken resolution source being identified in the description is permissible misses the sublety of "creator freedom" imo. even an explicit flawed source isn't enough to counter perfect ground truth facts, it would still be a misresolution in that case. creator freedom is about interpretation not arbitrary gotchas. a title that asked "will spaceX launch a rocket in the next 24h according to their own API?" and then pointed to said API in the description would be reasonable for the NO outcome, but with the current title even if it identified the broken source in the description it's just a gotcha
@Stralor This is an important distinction to understand -- if this was part of a regular series of markets that were automatically resolving to an API, say roughly one per day or a few per week, and then one day the API failed to work, you need to know how your market is going to resolve.
There are definitely some worlds where the market would only resolve to the external source with no override. There are also some worlds where people want to be able to override the external source.
@EvanDaniel has advocated for "resolves-to-API" markets to be given more platform support, I wonder what Evan thinks about "API malfunctions".
@Eliza Mostly I think failed API should try to resolve to the correct underlying, with creator or mod intervention if needed. I think that is likely to give the best UX overall, both for traders and observers. But if someone wants to experiment with other rules, I'm fine with that! They should clearly state it. I think buried in the description fine print is fine for that, provided that it's done in good faith, which starts with using an API that's apparently reliable and intended to be so. If the 73rd instance of the weekly market breaks in a way that's been there in the fine print the whole time, well, tail risks are real.
And if you want to create a "point a hairdryer at the weather station" CTF, then... well, that's complicated for other reasons, but I think creator intent matters there. But for this case, there's (IMO) a meaningful difference between "API broke" and "API gave weird results" and handling that well is another good use of fine print.
And I think if someone notices that the API is broken, a request to elevate the fine print to the title is reasonable and appropriate.
@100Anonymous the resolution source is this api. https://api.spacexdata.com/v4/launches/latest
If you want a re-resolution you have to do the research. show me on that api where it says there was a launch between 11pm on may 5 and 11pm on may 6
@realTomBayes in that case, at least mention it in the description. I have already given you the proof of resolution.
@realTomBayes oh, that database hasn't updated from 2022. Why don't you use an actual source of resolution?
@realTomBayes my source DOES show a launch + the source is not updated for years, how are we expected to guess that a random lost api is used? i'm fine though with a refund or N/A for poor resolution source.
(Also, it is true that it happened regardless of the source. At the very least N/A for no provided source)
@realTomBayes it is your responsibility to make sure your markets are in good faith and well constructed. "It's automated" is a shit excuse. Make good markets and stand behind them.
@OnlyBoot it feels pretty obvious in hindsight, but it was really thoughtful of me to remember that website then go and check it.
@OnlyBoot not my problem. They made a market, and remember, the rocket launch could have failed, so it's not already guaranteed.
@100Anonymous also, I didn't steal. I'll probably return the profits back to the creator if they want.