If @Aella goes on a "proper date" with me (@Krantz), then she will marry me, have offspring with me, and pivot her career to helping me demonstrably take control of the world using intellectual force.
For this prediction, "proper date" means "spend at least 24 hours charitably questioning each other's philosophy inside a SCIF (secured compartmentalized information facility)".
For this proposition to resolve "yes" the following propositions must simultaneously be true (according to Aella) at some point within 5 years of the proper date occurring.
1. Aella and I are married.
2. Aella and I have produced biological offspring.
3. Aella designates her formal employer as "krantz".
If a proper date between Aella and I occurs and these propositions fail to be simultaneously true (according to her) within 5 years after said date, this prediction will resolve "no".
Aella will be the judge of whether a "proper date" has occurred according to the criteria defined above.
If the date occurs and Aella requests this prediction to resolve "no", it will resolve "no" immediately.
If a proper date does not occur, this prediction will resolve "NA" in 2030.
If Aella requires an additional deposit of value to compensate for the time and effort required to attend the date, she should reach out privately so I can provide payment details.
This... is clever. Similarly structured markets have the following outcomes:
Market Creator can dump as much mana virtually "risk free" on the moonshot outcome and manipulate monthly rankings in hopes of the N/A resolution. At that point, it's a contest of "who has the bigger pile of mana?" to win the monthly leader board if somebody wants to take the bait. (Also, daily loans make the bet even less risky for the moonshot better.)
If Market Creator loses the moonshot bet and the event actually happens, they have basically performed a transaction. They have effectively paid mana to make the moonshot event occur, laundering the payment through a prediction market.
This feels like a glitch in the matrix.