@Robincvgr I put up more limit orders. I wanna divest out of ~~Mr. Bone’s Wild Ride~~ this market, so plz feel free to fill them.

I recommend you to N/A this market.

@CertaintyOfVictory why? Edit: nevermind, just read other comments

@bluerat N/A is the smart move

@Jx please N/A. The resolution criteria changed substantially from what I thought I was betting on. Given how much the market moved, clearly this was a material change.

The market was primarily so high in the first place before the title change because there was the threat of changing the resolution criteria looming over it, preventing people from arbitraging, etc. (For instance, I was at some point betting it down to above 70% instead of ~40% to allow for a somewhat less than 50% chance of the resolution criteria changing.) The resolution criteria did not change, @Jx just confirmed that they would remain the same, rather than changing. (The market was also very spiky before, for the same reason.)

The other market on the same question also moved a lot, just more gradually, hence they were relatively close before and after the threat of changing resolution criteria, but disagreed significantly during. (Eg, both were around 70% on January 11)

@binarypigeon wasn't the original title "Is Luigi Mangione the person who shot

UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson?" I didn't realize I was betting on a conviction only in 2025!

@NateBaer That was the original title, which I agree was misleading and should have been changed earlier (that said, I do think that one can infer from the original title that one has to check what the actual resolution criteria are -- eg, is it based on conviction, subjective judgment, etc -- since the ground truth on the title question is inaccessible. In general, titles on manifold do often only loosely relate to resolution criteria -- one can debate whether the site should have rules preventing this, of course.). It differed from the earlier resolution criteria, though.

@binarypigeon I appreciate you taking the time to explain. Was a conviction only in 2025 clearly expressed in the original resolution criteria?

@NateBaer As far as I can tell, it still isn't clearly expressed in the resolution criteria.

@Jx Any thoughts on the above?

@Qoiuoiuoiu Given that there are still >300 people with positions in this market, I'm going to keep it open for now

@Jx I'm one of the largest yes holders, but also think it's time for a cancel. Just holding out because I don't want to take the loss at this moment.

Just a tip: Any time you find yourself substantially re-writing the market title, the buttons you actually wanted are Resolve Market -> N/A. It's overused on a bunch of stuff (like "if <condition is not met>, resolves N/A), but "I want to 'clarify' resolution criteria in a way that drastically changes the likelihood" - or really, any case where you as the market creator screwed up the initial market description and people traded on that - is THE intended scenario for N/A.

@SeekingEternity He's in for a lot of 1 star ratings if he keeps the market open, lol (I already divested from this market)

Why the sudden dip in the last 24 hours? Did something big happen? (Couldn't find anything.)

@nottelling2ccc He finally clarified the resolution, lol

@nottelling2ccc Because this market is now about something completely different than it was initially.

[this convoluted market]

(should really update the title)

@strutheo Thanks for the reminder. I just updated it.

For people who want to bet on a later conviction deadline, there's now also this market: https://manifold.markets/Arcmage7000/will-luigi-mangione-be-convicted-of-CQRuROP528 (Probably there's still a decent chance that time rather than innocence will cause this other one to resolve "no".)

@mods please just resolve this yes and let him make another one for if he is convicted ?

That would be a misresolution. The resolution criteria have been based on conviction ever since they were explicitly stated, over a month ago.

@binarypigeon doesnt it say "1/15/25 update" next to those or am i missing something?

@Donald The update is just clarifying that the resolution criteria are remaining the same as before -- you can check the comment history. (In particular, the comments on the 9th of December, and also the recent thread where the creator was thinking of changing the resolution criteria because some people were misled by the title but decided not to, resulting in the recent "update".)

is it staying open til trial ends?

The creator (@Jx) originally said (on Dec 15) that it would resolve NO if no conviction occurred by the current end date (12/31/2025). They have recently been considering changing the date, and said "Since the beginning of this market, the deadline has been 12/31/25. I'm inclined to keep that date but not opposed to delaying.", and suggested they might change the title to reflect this. But they haven't yet said for certain whether the date will stay the same or change, so people are currently in part betting on what the creator will do.

@strutheo I agree that it's likely, but I'd say 98% confidence, definitely not good enough to resolve early, even besides the criteria that say it needs to stay open.

Additionally, the market description history can be seen under the "..." (next to the share button) -> see info -> history. Each edit is documented.