If Scott Alexander does not organize and bet at least $10,000 on a COVID origins debate which concludes before January 1st 2026, this market will be cancelled and all mana will be returned.
If such a debate is successfully organized and completed, this market will resolve based on the finalized results of that debate.
If neutral judges in a debate organized by Scott Alexander rule that COVID-19 most likely came from a laboratory release, this market resolves YES.
If neutral judges in a debate organized by Scott Alexander rule that COVID-19 most likely had a zoonotic origin, this market resolves NO.
In the case of a tie, such as a debate with two judges in which one rules for lab leak and one rules for Zoonosis, this market will be cancelled.
Context:
In his latest post based on the Rootclaim COVID Origins debate, Scott concludes by saying:
If it helps, I’m currently working out terms for a 6-digit lab leak bet of my own (no guarantee this will come to fruition, most of these fall apart in the resolution criteria stage). I feel bad for not being willing to answer every possible lab leak argument going forward, but hopefully offering lab leakers a few hundred thousand dollars if I’m wrong will be a suitable consolation prize.
For now, I’m still at 90-10 zoonosis.
In the Rootclaim debate, both sides put up $100,000 and then two neutral judges decided whether whether Covid-19 most likely originated from zoonosis or a lab leak from gain of function research. In the Rootclaim debate, both judges found in favor of Zoonosis.
It seems likely that a debate by Scott will follow a similar format, although perhaps he will have someone other than himself arguing for Zoonosis or the debate might be held in text form. A debate in any format organized by Alexander with at least $10,000 of his own money will resolve this market.
I will not trade on this question.
For a multichoice version of this question which will not resolve N/A in any scenario, see:
Related questions
@benshindel Hmmm, I've historically been skeptical of 50% resolutions because I think they distort the price, but we are entering a brave new world where N/A resolutions will be more complicated because of cash prizes, so that's worth considering.
Would anyone object to this alteration to the rules?
@Joshua we had this discussion in the previous debate market. It makes a very big difference in how aggressively you can bet
@Joshua https://manifold.markets/chrisjbillington/would-you-object-if-the-rootclaim-d there was poll about it even. I agree in general 50% is better but changing the question now ends up being a rug pull for the people who bet under 50% thinking that it would resolve to N/A in case of a draw.
New essay from Yuri Deigin on COVID-19 origins.
Michael Weissman's Bayesian analysis that Scott mentions but says he hasn't read as yet.
A rebuttal of some mathematical claims about early Covid-19 made by Scott Alexander.
https://arguablywrong.home.blog/2024/04/09/how-likely-is-it-for-covid-to-establish-itself/
As evidence against an earlier introduction, Scott also presents a doctored version of Fig. 3E from Pekar et al.'s "Timing the SARS-CoV-2 index case in Hubei province", 2021. It seems this misleading image was used for the Rootclaim debate.
https://twitter.com/nizzaneela/status/1777989261817508165?t=iKdlIodfWEfzFVWxGlVtrA&s=19
I don't usually go around telling people but... it was me. I was just trying to make a sourdough starter and then things got out of hand. Sorry for ruining the debate (and for all the death and stuff).