🏅 Top traders

@Joshua the resolution of 12x4+51 adds up to 99 instead of 100. Not sure if I m missing something here but shouldn’t they add up to 100%?

@Mochi All the ones that say 12 are actually slightly higher than 12, like 12.22ish. The 51 is not exactly 51. It is rounded for display purposes.

@Eliza got it, thanks for the clarification

@Eliza Looks like it was resolved like this:

Demis - 12.219720774567726

Elon - 12.219720774567726

Jensen - 12.219720774567726

Sam - 12.4253344489313

Other - 50.91550322736553

It adds to 100.

@Eliza I would give credit to AI too.

Wikipedia page isn't time magazine article.

Article mentioned AI in most. More than any of those CEOs.

Ceo of Nvidia is definitely not the architect for example.

Picture resembles the New York builders. Builders of AI are developers, AI tools, models and so on

@1bets it's too late now, it won't be changed

FWIW you should really pick your battles when it comes to disputing resolutions, I know it's fun to argue, but you can quickly step into the "disruptive noise" category and then your genuine disputes will end up ignored too. This is not directly related to your reasoning, but the timing - once it's decided, let it go!

@Gen unresolving happens oftenly

Bet here we need more transparency .. author tried to find balance.

But balance isn't equal to truth

@1bets there was a long discussion in discord, A market like this, that went through a full process where the creator thought about it, discussed it, and made a deliberate decision - is basically never getting unresolved

Things usually only get unresolved if the creator rushes something and new info comes out, or if the resolution was maliciously wrong

@Gen I genuinely have a kind of feeling that those Discord discussions were just to avoid discussing here and to justify a predetermined outcome (or slightly alter that) with upfront decisions to exclude AI option.

​The evidence that sticks out to me is the highly confident bets made by JeremiahKellick right before the discussion moved to discord , and he was not present in there. On top of that, his writing style feels for me similar to the creator's. I may be wrong.

​Again, I could be wrong, so don't take this as any kind of friendly investigation of any kind, just looking for clues to explain why things aren't logically adding up for me

I'm rich! I made a 0.3% profit on this question:

Wow. So, the article straight up never even gives a definitive list of who they chose as POTY?

It's a badly written article regardless, but if they had just put one more person on the ugly ripoff cover I would have made a few hundred more mana.

@TiredCliche Nvidia can't be named as architechs

"any other variation" seems to cover what happened IMO

@Hogan AI also was featured there, where is 10% for AI?

@1bets I think this is the point I was making?

@Hogan can't read your mind, sorry but I truly believe the judgement is not correct in core

@1bets why do you want 10% for ai, you didn’t bet it. You won mana betting on other. So you should be happy?

@NzJack0n 10% for each .

Ceos are not architects. Lunch on skyscraper is a photo of builders , those builders who built new New York.

AI models contribute to building AI models not less than CEOs.

AI actually at the cover, same as depiction of those CEO (pictured as builders).

The current resolution does not make sense.

Time magazine collaged CEOs as Builders of skyscrapers. But they are not.

good resolution imo!

@Robincvgr yes thanks for running the market and resolving carefully at joshua

2026 Market Here!!!!

Who will be TIME Magazine's 2026 Person of the Year?

This question resolves to the TIME 2026 Person of the Year. It uses consolidated answers to avoid having to predict who the major party nominees will be, or the exact wording of any abstract/group answers. If you would like to add a new candidate or consolidated answer to the market, submit it in a comment below. If a comment gets enough support, I'll open the market to submissions so that you can add it, and you'll get a bonus. Note that all consolidated answers must be mutually exclusive, so no more specific or general versions of existing options. The goal is to cleanly divide the probabilistic landscape into non-overlapping categories. If multiple options do end up being true, then those options will resolve to an even split of 100%. @Joshua credit for market idea. there will be no ai clarifications added to this market's description if you have a question, just ask in the comments :) !!!

@traders Best of luck next year :)

This is awesome, I was correct on every single bet I made in this market.

After consulting with the manifold discord, I am resolving the market to 12% Jensen, 12% Altman, 12% Elon, 12% Demis, and 51% Other. I believe this is most consistent with those individuals being 4 of the 8 listed on the Wikipedia list of TIME POTY winners and the resolution clause "If multiple options do end up being true, then those options will resolve to an even split of 100%".

The Artificial Intelligence option is for if AI itself won, regardless of if it were a specific model or a generic AI. TIME chose to give the credit to the humans behind the AI instead, so that option will resolve NO as it did on Polymarket and Kalshi. Maybe next year!

Thanks all for predicting, and apologies for the delay and messiness of the resolution. I don't know if I'll end up net profitable myself from this resolution, but if I am I'll put it all into subsidy for next year. And I'm very open to comments and suggestions on how the resolution criteria can be improved for the future.I think possibly the only really clean way to do it is to have individual, unlinked options like Kalshi. But I do like the challenge of trying to predict resolutions that have to sum to 100% and I hope you guys do too.

For posterity, screenshot of the resolution advisory poll:

It looks like it sums to 99%

@travis Can you explain why you think this sums to 99%? I'm pretty sure Manifold requires us to resolve to 100%.

@Joshua Is there a reason you did it this way instead of 1/1/1/1/4 which would have been more fair?

@Eliza Wait I’m actually confused how this is even possible? Where did the last % go lol?

I am assuming this is rounding something behind the scenes

@bens When you resolve Multiple Choice you don't enter percentages, you enter shares.

It looks like Joshua entered 12 12 12 12 50, which would allocate 51% (50/98) to Other and (12/98 = 12.24%) each to the 4 options.

I thought he wanted to give 12.5% to each of the 4, and 50% to Other, so he should have entered 1/1/1/1/4.

@Eliza ohhh…? That’s… funny ummm weird

@Eliza Ah I thought it had to be whole numbers and rounded down.

@Joshua In most markets it wouldn't make a big difference but it might be worth re-resolving here because some users have over 100,000 mana on relevant options -- that's costing benefiting them like 1000 mana on the difference between 51.02% and 50%.

@Eliza I think this is not worth spamming people's emails/notifications

@Joshua Even as someone not affected by re-resolution I think it is worth it.