Resolves "Yes" if there is credible reporting, or legal documents, showing that Austin Chen (@Austin, cofounder of Manifold Markets) has been criminally charged with any felony crime.
Resolves "No" if this does not happen by Jan 1st, 2030.
Question is global -- charges in any country count.
Charges count even if they do not lead to a conviction, were settled before a conviction, or if he was found not guilty. As soon as there is an official felony charge, the question resolves "Yes".
Minor misdemeanors do not count, only more serious (i.e. "felony") crimes.
@IsaacKing I'm writing a Mantic Monday post on scandal markets, and I wanted to have an example of how they're hard to manipulate. So I spent a lot of money manipulating this one and sure enough you all brought it back to normal really quickly, and now I can use it as an example.
I originally did it with my own market, but I was worried nobody would unmanipulate it because they thought I was going to manipulate it by doing fraud and then collecting my winnings, so I unmanipulated it myself and retried it here. If you're wondering why there was a similar spike in the Scott Alexander scandal market, that's why.
@ScottAlexander I'll note that if you had used an anonymous account (or even better, secretly paid a known trader to do it for you), put in closer to Ṁ10,000, and set a limit order around 60% rather than spend it all at once, I expect the probability would have stayed high for a significant length of time.
Similar things have happened before on other markets, where traders are hesitant to correct a seemingly-wrong probability, because someone confidently betting in that direction implies they know something that everyone else doesn't.
@ScottAlexander You love to see it! For such markets, I'm sure there will be question formulations that have a relatively higher (risk-info-collection) to (damage-to-innocents) ratio. Naysayers will likely poo-poo such markets if these details aren't already figured out, but I'm just happy to see them experimented on.