Which of these would you want back the most?

@NathanpmYoung I raised it back to the poll creator so they could explain/clarify. I do understand that once the poll is made changing it is not ideal.

As an user experience I think I'd like to have a "I don't understand the question" it can even be hidden away in a three dot menu if you think it's confusing.

I think it would be useful info for poll creators because at least it lets you know why people are skipping it. After all there's a big difference between "I don't have an opinion", and "I don't know what my opinion is"

Man I just want to say that I think this pivot seems like a good idea, I can see that the Manifold team has worked hard to come up with a good solution and it's actually delivering on that, and a lot of the objections don't make all that much sense to me.

So, thanks to the team, and I hope the users will be able to better see the merits of the changes without being too anchored by their existing expectations.

@JonasVollmer seems like they were pushing through these changes rapidly and breaking an implicity contract (that 100 mana was worth a dollar) and a strong implicity contract (that mana could be donated at 100 mana to a dollar) and an explicity contract (by pausing donations on ~a weeks notice)

@NathanpmYoung weren't donations always flagged to be a temporary thing that may or may not continue to exist? I'm not inclined to search for links but that was my understanding.

There was no implicit contract that 100 mana was worth $1 IMO. This was explicitly not the case given CFTC restrictions?

I get that people want their internet points to pay-to-win ratio to stay consistent so others cant swamp their profit scores as easily...but 1. Isn't Manifold already thinking about 10x-ing profit scores alongside the transition and 2. Ppl don't seem to understand that Manifold could literally not exist in a year or 2 if they don't find a product market fit

Overall contract considerations seem very overblown here.

@CarsonGale

(I suggest we have this discussion here, where it will be much easier to follow. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ZAqaQrAimgfweHGSr/nathan-young-s-shortform?commentId=wnLvqvsdhYJds5owd)

On donations (via https://manifoldmarkets.notion.site/Charitable-donation-program-668d55f4ded147cf8cf1282a007fb005)

"Unclear. As an early-stage startup that needs to be flexible, Manifold makes zero guarantees about the longevity of this program and reserves the right to end it at any moment.

That being said, we will do everything we can to communicate to our users what our plans are for the future and work with anyone who has participated in our platform with the expectation of being able to donate mana earnings."

"everything we can" is not a couple of weeks notice and lot of hassle.

Likewise:

"Manifold for Good has received grants totaling $500k from the Center for Effective Altruism (via the FTX Future Fund) to support our charitable endeavors."

Manifold has donated $200k so far. So there is $300k left. Why not at least, say "we will change the rate at which mana can be donated when we burn through this money"

On value of mana:

Austin took his salary in mana as an often referred to incentive for him to want mana to become valuable.

I recall comments like 'we pay 250 in referrals mana per user because we reckon we'd pay about $2.50' likewise in the in person mana auction. I'm not saying it was an explicit contract, but there were norms.

And if we are about to move to somewhere I invest my real money.. norms matter to me.

On existing in a year or two:

Austin said they have $1.5 million in the bank, vs $1.2 million mana issued. The only outflows right now are to the charity programme which even with a lot of outflows is only at $200k. they also recently raised at a $40 million valuation. I am confused by running out of money. They have a large user base that wants to bet and will do so at larger amounts if given the opportunity. I'm not so convinced that there is some tiny timeline here.

But if there is, then say so "we know that we often talked about mana being eventually worth $100 mana per dollar, but we printed too much and we're sorry. Here are some reasons we won't devalue in the future.."

If not, why should I bet on long term markets when mana might be worth a lot less if I win?

@CarsonGale alternatively let's chat on discord

@NathanpmYoung will reach out on one of those mediums. I suspect a driver of difference in views is the looming spectre of dread that is sunsetting or putting into maintenance mode the site generally and our views on how likely that is, which influences how we perceive the pivot.

(Opting to not re-write this confusingly written paragraph, you get the gist)

@NathanpmYoung I am still very confused how MM suddenly got to such a dire situation with (at least it seems like) relatively few of the efforts I would have expected to see to generate revenue for a game before we got to this point.

@DaveK any venture co is on a timer to figure out product market fit, otherwise ppl will start leaving. Opportunity cost is extremely high, the team is very talented.

The team could potentially just run the site extremely cheaply on maintenance mode w/o needing growth, but that is a failing strategy and doesn't position the co for long-run success.

@CarsonGale I don’t see how that’s in disagreement with what I’m saying; I am saying that if they felt they were close to needing to pivot for past 6 months, I don’t understand why the only apparent experiment was Manifold Love

@DaveK Manifold Politics? Bet on Love? This company is many things and experimentive was def one

@CarsonGale I bucket Bet on Love with Manifold Love, but if you want to count separately, sure.

I did forget Manifold Politics, but that’s in large part because I am talking more here about revenue models than I am about audience growth. James seems convinced that there are no MTX options to explore — I don’t get that claim.

@NathanpmYoung They got a smallish amount of funding at 40M valuation, right? I think ~six months ago, without great growth in metrics since then?

I could see why they felt like money was getting tight given burn rate and the odds of losing lots of users on pivot who can't, or don't want to, gamble real money (e.g., minors, people in certain countries). It is in some ways a reset.