I did not forget about this market, I'm just waiting for https://manifold.markets/Yev/poll-did-cosmo-repay-me-m1010 to resolve.

Made a similar market with the tweaks I discussed below:

This is an interesting market design, but if I were to run a market on this, I'd probably change a few things on the market design. I think it's pretty suboptimal to have a market just on how much was actually repaid. Instead, I'd probably run one market on how much the agreed yield would be (i.e. bond auction), and another on whether there would be a default / what percentage of the agreed amount would be repaid on time (i.e. credit default swap).

Moreover, the way credit default swaps (CDS) are structured is that the defaulting bond is sold at auction, and the CDS pays out the difference between the full price and the amount that it could be sold for.

To bring that analogy here to Cos's threatened default: The bond Cos sold to Yev could be auctioned at approximately the amount Cos was expected to pay - which is actually higher than the promised m1010. So in fact, the CDS would not need to pay anything out.

People do spend a lot of effort gaming CDS payouts, but at least it handles some cases better than just paying out according to the amount repaid on-time.

@jack Or I could just switch to a payment method which does not support defaults:

1. I create a dummy market

2. Borrower places limit orders at 10% and 90%

3. I hit both of them

4. After a predetermined amount of time I resolve N/A

@Yev Nice! I like this method.

https://manifold.markets/link/dSWGjDyO

@v = not bot

@Gigacasting https://manifold.markets/link/tXSPhSAX

https://manifold.markets/link/tXSPhSAX

Anyone want to give me a loan of M$50,000 for a 10% return?

@GeorgeVii Sure, what timeframe?

Hmm... I might be willing to give you this loan too :)

Wow, that was quick! (And two responses!)

Tf: ~3 weeks.

Maybe you can compete on terms. Tho tbh I was originally gunning for 100,000 anyway, just wasn't convinced anyone would actually lend that much.

Just testing waters of p2p loan possibilities really.

@GeorgeVii What are you offering as a guarantee of repayment in the event the Biden market falls through?

You might need to put up velocity as collateral.

@MichaelWheatley Biden who? idk what you mean

@GeorgeVii So you do not deny you can put velocity as collateral?

To clarify the resolution criteria: the repayment does not have to be voluntary.

@Yev Are there non-voluntary ways to get repayment on Manifold?! Is this the start of Manifold loan sharks?

@jack :)

@jack @MichaelWheatley How much money can I honorably take if @cos doesn't repay me voluntairly on time?

@Yev Honorably? Zero, if the transfer is involuntary. Arbitrarily large amounts, otherwise.

The people of Manifold value two things above all else: proper market resolution and cold, hard mana. Regarding the former, consider the resolution criteria under which you've run this market for the vast majority of its existence.

From the title:
"I want to invest M$1000 for 1 week. How much will the borrower pay me at the end?"

From the description:
"At first close, I will take the highest such offer first, but I may take more than one. After this, the market will reopen. Then a week later market will resolve according to how much mana the first borrower repayed me."

Taking, for example, the common definition from Wikipedia, "payment" is understood to be "the voluntary tender of money or its equivalent or of things of value by one party (such as a person or company) to another in exchange for goods, or services provided by them, or to fulfill a legal obligation."

Therefore, it is clear that any involuntary transfer of wealth would fail to satisfy the established resolution criteria of this market. On top of that, any transfer of wealth initiated by anyone other than me and received by anyone other than you would also fail to satisfy the established resolution criteria of this market.

Personally, I would never dare risk my honor and reputation to resolve a market improperly. Would you?

As for the the latter value, mana, consider the following.

Through this loaning mechanism, you had initiated a game with mildly positive expected mana for both of us.

At first, I had transformed that game into one with a little bit more expected mana for both of us.

Then, someone had pointed out that profiting off a contract violation (even if merely implicit) would be dishonorable, "a dick move" so to speak. For the sake of my own honor (and a general desire not to be a dick), I'd transformed that game into one with significantly positive expected mana for you and approximately zero expected mana for me.

Alas, I've rather unfortunately left little room for you to further modify the game at my expense without risking great dishonor. I say it's unfortunate because I'm having fun! It pains me to limit your action space and, therefore, our ability to have fun.

Should you still wish to modify the game further, which I hope you do, I suggest you get creative. I can easily imagine at least a dozen paths by which you might yet compel me to pay you $M1,010 before close without paying any significant price in honor or reputation.

As it stands, however, I'm sticking with my original plan. I will not pay you before this market resolves.

Also, I leave you with one warning: should you demonstrate significant dishonor by way of improper market resolution or excessive reappropriation of mana, I would swear off playing games with you forever.

And that would really suck! I like playing with you, and I look forward to playing more games in the future!

@Yev If you were thinking of taking mana by taking profit on a market from Cos, I don't think that counts as payment.

Perhaps I could be convinced otherwise depending on the details, but it's definitely shaky ground.

@cos You are ignoring the fact that conspiring with you to manipulate this market (to make it resolve to 1, even though you pay me a lot more) will also damage my reputation. You are emphasizing that this is positive expected utility for both of us, and that's exactly the problem. If I make a market like this again, the traders will know that I can conspire with the borrower and take away their money, so they won't want to trade.

As it stands, however, I'm sticking with my original plan. I will not pay you before this market resolves.

That was not the original plan. The original plan was that you pay me M$1010 before the market closes. Deviating from that plan was dishonest and a dick move, even if you give all the profits to me.

@Yev Hmm, good attempt but if I were cos I wouldn't be convinced :)

Re "positive for both", Cos can easily just declare that they'll pay exactly $1010 right after market resolution.

Also personally I see no reputational harm because I don't think it's a conspiracy - I think Cos decided to do this unilaterally. And more importantly, a non-conspiring actor could do the same thing regardless so it doesn't change much for the other traders.

Hmm... I think resolving this to 1 when I know that @cos is going to pay me more is going to be dishonest. I said "at the end", but it's not really "the end" if I expect Cosmo to repay the loan shortly afterwards. So I see a few options:

• I resolve this to N/A because Cosmo has created a paradox.

• I resolve this to 1 and refuse to take @cos's mana after that. Cos suffers a reputation penalty for only repaying me M$1.

• I resolve this to what I expect Cosmo to pay me, then Cosmo pays me that amount, and the resolution retroactively becomes correct (although it is still improper)

@Yev "at the end" is the headline summary, but the market description clarifies it as "Then a week later market will resolve according to how much mana the first borrower repayed me." This is perfectly reasonable, and I think the correct resolution is how much was paid within that 1 week.

I think Cos decided to do this unilaterally. And more importantly, a non-conspiring actor could do the same thing regardless so it doesn't change much for the other traders.

I'm not sure what you mean by "do the same". If the non-conspiring borrower only gave me M$1, then I'd resolve 1, they'd suffer a reputation penalty. I'd be okay with that. But Cosmo is trying to both make this market resolve low, and not get any reputation penalty. That requires my cooperation.

"at the end" is the headline summary, but the market description clarifies it as "Then a week later market will resolve according to how much mana the first borrower repayed me."

Good point.

That was not the original plan. The original plan was that you pay me M$1010 before the market closes. Deviating from that plan was dishonest and a dick move, even if you give all the profits to me.

@Yev Alas, I concede, you win. In line with my earlier analogy to the Prisoner's Dilemma, I shall rationally interpret your recent trades as you smashing that "cooperate" button with all you've got, and I shall cooperate in turn. I have sent you a Manalink for M$1,009, bringing my total repayment to M$1,010 as required by our original agreement.

Well played, and thanks for playing!

P.S. Please do put in a good word for me with the MANA® Credit Bureau.

@cos Thanks, I will put in a good word for you. But I'd like to point out that no mana other than the initial M$1 has changed hands yet.

@Yev Well, that's just untrue. Given that Manalinks function identically to bearer checks, I have indeed already repaid you the agreed upon $M1,010.

Staying consistent with my existing line of argument, I shall refer once again to Wikipedia for a common definition of payment:

> A payment is the voluntary tender of money or its equivalent or of things of value by one party (such as a person or company) to another in exchange for goods, or services provided by them, or to fulfill a legal obligation.

...as for checks in particular:

> A payment by cheque is normally deemed to occur when the cheque is delivered

..and if you want to get really particular:

> This rule also generally applies where the cheque is not presented to the bank until the next taxable year

In other words, regardless of when you decide to cash the check (i.e., Manalink), I have indeed already repaid you, especially given that I set the expiry of the Manalink to "never."

Definitional arguments aside, as with a bearer check, this Manalink may be shared with any other Manifold user for the delivery of M$1,009. It is very difficult for me to conceive of any world in which delivery of such an instrument is inconsistent with delivery of mana owed for repayment of a debt or other financial liability.

@cos That is a pretty convincing argument.

However very similar edge cases were already considered here by @LivInTheLookingGlass and here by @jack. In particular, Olivia said that if the manalink is not claimed, her market resolves 0. Since my market is supposed to work the same way as hers, I think I should not count unclaimed manalinks either.

Lol the popcorn continues.

Yeah I think plain English support's cos's definition of payment, but the clarifications on Olivia's market support using the amount actually accepted. Though I always thought that particular resolution definition was a bit silly. You could see it as min(amount borrower is willing to repay, amount lender is willing to accept).

@Yev Far more recently and far more obviously in relation to this market than either of those discussions, you put it all quite plainly right here:

> I think resolving this to 1 when I know that @cos is going to pay me more is going to be dishonest. I said "at the end", but it's not really "the end" if I expect Cosmo to repay the loan shortly afterwards.

It stands to reason that, if you can expect me to repay the loan at any point not just shortly afterwards but before the market even closes, "resolving this to 1 [...] is going to be dishonest."

@cos I did say that, but in the very next comment @jack pointed out a flaw in my argument.