Prop Bet Prop Bets: What will Manifold implement related to Prop Bets before 4/20?
Apr 21
Any changes to how N/A resolution works on prop bet options (currently I believe user liquidity trader bonuses are not reversed)
Search feature for Resolving
Any changes to how many options can be open at once
Any change to what happens to user-provided liquidity after an option resolves yes/no (currently I believe the mana is burned instead of being returned like it is in other markets)
Some sort of system for approving user submissions
Any changes to trader bonuses on prop bets
Ability for market creator to customize default order of questions (not sort)
Different closing times for different submissions / the option to close certain answers
Any ability to limit on how many options can be added per user
Any changes to house provided liquidity on prop bets
Something like an option to sort by answers that have been traded on most/least, or which have the most/least positions
Ability to create polls in comments/attach a poll to an MC answer comment
Any changes to price to add options
A separate "prop bet market type" shown on the question creation page
Ability to appoint market co-resolvers
An option to pin certain answers to the top of the market but have the rest of the answers sorted by high/low/etc
Any official change in policy about how mega markets should be tagged
Any change that stops option submitters from trading on that option (global or configurable)
A way for the prop bet market creator to commit to not trading in their own market, so as to stay unbiased
An option to sort answers by liquidity

Everyone loves prop bets lately! Will Manifold make any changes related to them before 4/20? Let's find out! Add your own!

"Prop bets" are loosely defined here, I'd probably count any changes that apply to megamarkets/what will happen markets despite those not necessarily being the same thing as prop bets.

Get Ṁ200 play money
Sort by:
Ability for market creator to customize default order of questions (not sort)

Without using any of the sort options, I would like to create a default order as to how the questions appear to people visiting my market. The user can then sort if they so desire.

bought Ṁ20 Any ability to limit... NO

There's no way this many changes would be shipped in the next two weeks. I think there's a lot of profit to be made just by betting NO on all the options.

bought Ṁ10 A separate "prop bet... NO

On second thought, the one way I could be wrong is if improved prop bets markets are the big pivot that the Manifold team has in store...

A penis is hanging out of the trousers in the comments section (trader or creator)

good thing answer add notifications were restored or I might miss the real gems like this

@shankypanky Oh geeze

@shankypanky That's why I've spent years of my life fighting for a comeback of this feature 😉

@Lion thank you for carrying on the fight in my absence to ensure I'm always in the loop 🫡 immediate payoff obviously

Any change to the search option and add option UI

Hasn't this already happened? Back on the 12th there was just the input box for searching/adding, then they hid it behind a "search" button, and now I see you can unhide it either with the "search" or "add answer" buttons.

@BrunoParga Yes true!

An option to pin certain answers to the top of the market but have the rest of the answers sorted by high/low/etc
bought Ṁ1 An option to pin cer... YES

This would be superb to feauture certain questions and too keep the spirit of the market

@Lion Yeah there have been many times I have wanted to do this, like a debate market with a "who will win?" Pinned to the top and then assorted trending props below.

@Joshua Not necessarily a problem, but I do think that’ll extra incentivize people to be the creators for prop bet markets, and pin their markets at the top for the best visibility. That’s probably fine, you do want creators to control their markets, but if you already have people competing to be the creator in charge of a popular prop bet market, this will make it even more desirable

@Ziddletwix Should I add "Nationalize Prop Bets" as an option? 😅

@Joshua I mean tbh I don’t think some form of that would be crazy, especially when is involved, which basically makes it “official”.

But it’s hard to get the details right. Running props is hard so you still need to offer SOME incentive, it feels bad if Manifold steps in last minute to take over something that you built, etc etc

@Ziddletwix Yeah it's a very complicated set of incentives. There is definitely a good argument that bet creators are under-incentivized right now because they're doing a lot of work running the market while users can just add options and sit back to collect trader bonuses.

Given how many subjective cases there inevitably are with these markets, I think one direction you could go in is to pay the market creator more in trader bonuses and let them officially appoint co-resolvers to help resolve, sharing the increased trader bonuses with those co-resolvers.

But then after you do that, you encourage a norm that the resolvers commit to not trade in the market themselves so that everyone can trust them to be unbiased.

I haven't thought about this very hard though, definitely a lot of ways you could improve the incentive system.

@Ziddletwix I feel like the people who compete to be in charge of managing prop bets market always is and will be significant smaller than for normal easy to manage & resolve questions like 'Who will be president?' or 'Who will be POTY?'. I don't think that this is a specific prop bets market problem.

Search feature for Resolving
bought Ṁ1 Search feature for R... YES

This would be so nice, it's really hard to find 1 option out of 100 to resolve it

bought Ṁ10 Any ability to limit... YES

@Joshua On desktop it’s manageable, but on mobile forget it.

An option to sort answers by liquidity
bought Ṁ120 An option to sort an... YES

This is already how the "Trending" sort works.

See and

  { label: 'Trending', value: 'liquidity' },


      } else if (sort === 'liquidity') {
        return 'subsidyPool' in answer ? -answer.subsidyPool : 0

@Gabrielle I'm confused—that's not how "trending" works when searching for questions right? (IIUC that's a measure of increase in popularity within the last ~week, right?)

Edit: actually I'm extra confused. when you sort by "Trending" in indepdendent MC, you clearly see a question with a recent bet on it pop up to the top of the list, rather than just the questions with the total # of traders (or other proxies for liquidity) staying consistently near the top?

Isn't that sorting by options where liquidity was recently added, because someone recently bet on it? I thought that was the system. In theory the highest liquidity questions shoudl be the ones with the most traders, which we can't sort by right now.

bought Ṁ10 Any official change ... NO

@Ziddletwix Yep. "trending" on the normal search page is totally different and unrelated to "trending" on a multiple choice market

sold Ṁ16 An option to sort an... YES

@Gabrielle I dont' know enough to bet against you here but in the meeting today they were just talking about adding sort by liquidity as if it didn't exist already. So this probably resolves yes because I think they will do that but I don't think it's already true.

For anyone looking at this, discussion moved onto Discord. To summarize my point, shows @JamesGrugett saying

...Trending, which is just the amount of liquidity in the answer, which is typically based on the number of unique traders (b/c manifold injects liquidity for each new trader)

There were some questions about why that isn't the same as the number of traders, and I'm guessing that it's because market subsidies get thrown away when the market isn't at 50%. This is because on multiple choice markets p always equals 0.5. (For context on what that means, see This is according to James as well (

Yep, independent multi has p=0.5