Resolving N/A because the feature was added, but then reverted before I could use it due to an infinite mana exploit.

I believe the ability to do his is currently being reverted: https://github.com/manifoldmarkets/manifold/commit/0e70603615e6688ec869dd3560521b909ea5f986
So maybe don't resolve this market just yet (unless you want to resolve even if it was only available for a few minutes)

This market might need to N/A. I discovered a fatal flaw in the way markets like this interact with adding answers, and as a result James temporarily disabled it (for now - they will be working on adding it back with fixes).

In any case, @JosephNoonan I recommend either closing this market or N/A-ing it.

Here are two better markets I created:

@jack Yep, you and me both. The revert just got announced

@FlorisvanDoorn or could wait to see if it works by end of July?

@FlorisvanDoorn the resolution was if it was possible before close, which was clearly satisfied, if only briefly. I think it is fine for the market to stay open and wait to resolve, but I do not see any way that this market can resolve NO any longer (i.e. NO on NO should be a sure thing based on the criteria)

NA is good too. If it wasn't possible to resolve as intended due to the short window of availability

@ShitakiIntaki meh I was a NO on NO holder and I could still see a world where it could fairly resolve YES on 'NO', seeing as the option kinda hiccuped its way out, but this conflict is prob a good reason it was N/A'd

@JosephNoonan Ability to add answers was just announced. You should now be able to add the YES answer and resolve to it.

I don't know why you structured the market this way, it doesn't actually work to answer the question asked, but the resolution procedure is clear.

@JosephNoonan Can you confirm that you're able to add an answer right now? I want to lock in a NO resolution on the first option.

I feel like this feature would be ill advised to implement.

Regardless if there is an edit history such as in the comments, imagine the confusion if you had a market such as this one where you swapped the names of each of the optionswith other options. i.e. A cat dog market inverts the option names and suddenly it is a dog cat market.

@ShitakiIntaki This isn't really that much different from what's already the case with binary markets. The creator has the ability to completely alter the title and description, which could be similarly abused. Also, keep in mind that adding new options is also a possibility, which Manifold plans to implement at some point.

@ShitakiIntaki Also, you shouldn't by "No" YES, you should buy " " NO. They have the same payouts, but the latter will pay out in more possible circumstances.

@JosephNoonan I assumed that this multiple choice market was equivalent to a binary market, what circumstances am I missing?

Edit. I see it now. and Thank you Joseph

With respect to the editing of options to invert the payout expectations and the analogous problem with market creators being able to edit the market title and description already: I concede that you are right. The risk of being taken may be increased by adding such a feature, but not by much given the existing edit features. Provided there is yet another edit history to look back upon, it is unlikely that the extra places to look for evidence of bad faith abuse would be much of a bar to clear to traders who get rug pulled or ripped off from finding and protesting the the action.

Keep in mind that it only resolves to the blank option if I can edit that to say "Yes". If it's possible to add options, but not edit them, then I'll add a new option to resolve to. So really, it would be better to buy NO of "No" rather than YES of " ".

@JosephNoonan That's a good point. You caught me making a mistake.

@JosephNoonan spilling secrets over here

I think this is pretty unlikely since they didn’t back update other MC markets with the new short betting.