Angelthump best resolution

• I personally think N/A is the least bad resolution here

• Discord is almost unanimously in favor of N/A

• Isaac's pool shows overwhelming support of N/A (2-2-7)

Therefore I'm resolving this market N/A.

To avoid any accusations that I'm resolving N/A to undo my losses (M$182), here is a manalink for the total value of M$200: https://manifold.markets/link/xFKdnZQ8 (M$5 to first 40 people)

Truthfully, I think the best resolution would be for the other market creators to comment why they resolved their markets. Let Yev make a decision based on that

Poll: How do you think this market should resolve? Vote my liking one of my three responses to this comment.

Should resolve YES.

Should resolve NO.

Should resolve N/A.

@IsaacKing *Vote by liking.

@IsaacKing Should resolve no but it'll be N/A if Yev is reasonable. Can always make another poll.

if we’re all being honest it should probably be “no”. I think despite the third listed criteria, (those others were resolved based on that listed reason) there is no longer dispute as to whether or not destiny is at 600k and the year isn’t even over.

Additionally, all 3 listed resolved “yes”

Prediction market on the result of Isaac's poll:

And a poll of badged users only:

I think resolving on the basis of a poll is against the spirit of proper market integrity and I hope Yev isn’t bullied into doing so. It should be on the maker and their reputation to decide an outcome

@Gen It's not being resolved based on the poll, but I do think it's ok to take into account how traders were expecting the market to resolve and placing their bets accordingly.

@IsaacKing I don't think the outcome of this poll should matter. I think market creators should resolve their questions according to their stated criteria, and if someone has a surprising secret reason why they shouldn't follow their stated criteria (in this case, the point about truncation), they should at least comment on this first so the public understanding of the resolution criteria can change.

@IsaacKing But that's not what the poll is asking.

@StevenK The criteria are ambiguous. That's the problem.

@IsaacKing Nobody was expecting N/A. Your poll is obviously not intended to show what people were expecting, but rather, what they want now

@IsaacKing

This market resolves YES if [...] Any of those 3 market creators resolves their market based on the claim that the sub count was "600k"

What is ambiguous here?

@StevenK Did the market creators resolve their market based on a claim?

Maybe they resolved it based on flipping a coin, and it just so happened that they all landed heads at the same time destiny hit 600k.

Do you have any evidence to suggest that they resolved it based on a claim?

@StevenK Putting a somewhat equally disingenuous shoe on the other foot, do you have definitive proof that that was the reason given by any of those market creators for why they resolved their markets YES? After all other corroborating sites were also given as being over 600k at the time.

@EdwardKmett TRUE - @StevenK Sell your YES and join the N/A legion

@NewPlace2Frown Better yet, do like me. buy/sell until you run out of mana from the bots or other traders. an ACTUAL gigachad bet on N/A

@EdwardKmett I don't think I've said anything disingenuous. I don't think what you said is necessarily disingenuous either, but it seems weak as grounds for a NO resolution. Yev will have to make an honest guess about what the real grounds for resolution were, and given that the resolution happened quickly after the YouTube count (and other counts based on it) hit 600k, and screenshots of this were posted, and as far as I know nothing else was cited as a reason to resolve, it seems like a reasonable person would conclude that the resolution was indeed based on the 600k number.

@Jacknaut gigachad

@IsaacKing @EdwardKmett FWIW some things Jack said in another thread made me realize there may have been other interpretations in play than the one I was assuming, and I can see why on those interpretations my truncated quote would have been disingenuous.

@StevenK There doesn't need to be honour for those participating in the markets, only the makers. Respect to you for fighting for that N/A and making out alright in the end. I don't think anyone is going to be salty about how it turned out, we are all just weaseling what we can and ultimately it's Yev who has to make the decision (and I hope everyone is at peace with that decision)

For the record, the decision rekt me

@Gen I had an extreme amount of fun spazzing out. I like to think I had good arguments for NO and not N/A beyond "its obviously the intent omegalul", even though I'm not the Jack who was persuasive for Steven (or possibly anyone else), and there's a lot I could have phrased better to make the distinction between "fact" and "claim" more salient, and not just a bullshit stretch like it probably came off.

Happy to take the N/A resolve + thrill over the NO profit + butthurt technicality litigation loser.

At the end of the day, props to Steven for the troll, he seems to be the one and only person that I can tell based on trades who argued/voted for YES "genuinely". Maybe its rude of me to assume bad faith suggest he was being disingenous and only looking for a technicality to profit on that no reasonable person... but....

@Jacknaut

@Jacknaut oof my sentences at the end are missing words. I've been running on fumes from the euphoric high of this market drama for way too long, You get the point though.

@Jacknaut I personally hate market drama and try to avoid betting in markets where the outcome will be controversial in a foreseeable way.