Resolves YES

We got 99 traders here, who'll be the 100th?

wooo

@TheBayesian we have 100, nice. And the last one is....

Ok, so here is what I think can keep everything fair...I've added 10k subsidy to the "Khloe and Tristan" Kardashian market...and will continue to super-subsidize that one so that it gets participation from >100 traders (I have another reason that I want to get a good Manifold community prediction on that question). AND that way the YES resolution on the "Will any market about Kardashians" will end up being true based on another market...as well keeping people whole who already placed bets on my self-referential market mistake.

@JoeBrenton A noble effort, but I predict this market hits 100 traders before that one does.

it is a strong incentive to research the topic though i might give it a go in a week or so

@IsaacKing yes, I expect that too...and when the OTHER subsidized market hits 100 traders before the end of 2023, then the resolution to 'YES' condition for THIS market will have been met in principle by BOTH markets

@JoeBrenton But this one will still resolve YES if only it hits 100 and not the other one, right?

@IsaacKing YES

what if this market gets 100 traders

@lag - 100 traders on this market would resolve to "YES", but I'd really like this market resolution NOT to be self-referential.
I've been researching current discussion topics in the online Kardashian fan communities... and so far here are three hot questions I've found and created markets:

@JoeBrenton You could have just said in the description that this question doesn't count itself. Too late to change it now, but it's really made the market rather meaningless. Now it has nothing to do with measuring other markets, it's just another "Will this market reach 100 traders" meme market

fyi if you want to n/a it i'd be fine with that, you'd get the money back

@jacksonpolack if possible you could n/a and then create another market with a "not including this market" clause in the resolution description

yep, I was sloppy and set it up too quickly...and then shrugged it off as a mistake that I would just let ride. @jacksonpalock I like your suggestion of creating another market with "not including this market" clause in the resolution description...I think I'll do that...but also seems like it would be most fair to everyone betting already just to leave the current one up as-is due to it being my mistake. Is there a reason I'm missing that anyone involved would find that objectionable?

@JoeBrenton I would prefer that this market be resolves n/a as I bet no on the belief that it was excluding this market, and I believe that a lot of other no bettors thought the same

I mean, it was implied below that it'd include this market, but yeah

@jacksonpolack that's true I guess, then I think keeping the market open would be the right move

Would this market, with the offending word (at least, its plural) in the title, count towards resolution if it gets 100 traders?

@Tomoffer The market creator's responses to my comment below seem to imply that Yes.

so far there have been three Kardashian markets on Manifold, with max of 19 traders

@JoeBrenton You adding 10k mana of subsidy looks like a way to bait NO holders into making bets. Most of the "Will this market have more than 100 traders" didn't pan out well for me. Somehow your market will sufficiently different that I am willing to take a bet / take the bait.

@42irrationalist Kind of, but really I just added the subsidy to get any participation…as a counter to this market being somewhat somewhat self-limiting…so it also adds the angle that it might depend on another Kardashian market.