Resolving as NO because the initial terms were clear that the amount had to be $500 B. Sorry for the confusion as I had at one point said I'd resolve to a partial Yes because a bill did pass that didn't quite reach that number.

I am unclear why anyone would buy YES considering this already didn’t happen.

@BTE >27% chance he resolves dishonestly considering his statement

@OliverS So we should be driving it to zero.

@OliverS I don’t understand betting in anticipation of dishonest resolution. Especially when you have 100 percent chance of it being NO. What is the benefit to him of resolving a 0% market yes??

@OliverS That is fucked up. Equally dishonest to bet YES as it is to resolve YES. Your reputation should get dinged along with creator.

@BTE All markets are bets on how the creator will resolve the market. I think you make a good argument, but I'm not the creator, and I'm betting there's a chance that James won't be convinced.

@BTE Don’t hate the player hate the game

This market is NO. Period.

@BTE Any resolution other than NO should result in a ban.

@BTE that's not how it works, though. The premise of Manifold is that creators can resolve however they want. A community reputation system of some kind is of course badly needed.

The Inflation Profiteering Act includes less than this, resolves NO as currently proposed.

@Gigacasting The creator of this market has said that because it dedicates 86% of what he proposed, he'll resolve to 86% if it passes. I find that counterintuitive, and it should definitely be in the market description, but there you go.

Creator can send M46 for rugging.

“At a minimum, $500 billion” is beyond unambiguous.

Notice he took a long position then stole from everyone betting here:

ill Democrats pass a substantial reconciliation bill before the midterm elections?

88%

•

James Medlock

M$858

+329.1%

Payout if YES

M$970

Payout if NO

M$0

Profit

M$658

Either way, strong candidate for the first person to be hard or soft banned.

(actually this has to resolve N/A, given at least a dozen people are being stolen from with YES resolution and just as many if NO, who bet after he changed the terms)

@Gigacasting Yeah this is pretty clearly breaking the terms set in the description. One of the nice parts about manifold markets is that you don't have to spell out the requirements exactly, so writing them out and the reneging is extra dumb. Just use less definitive language/be more vague, that's what I did in my market!

https://www.crfb.org/blogs/whats-inflation-reduction-act

@fortenforge I will resolve this as an 86% win

@JamesMedlock So the NO just get screwed?!?

@JamesMedlock Those were not the terms as stated in the question or the description. I've bought M$25 NO (was not a previous participant in this market). This should resolve NO---and it should be a lesson about why it's dangerous to bet in your own markets!