🏅 Top traders

Did anyone get a manalink from this? Just wondering as I obviously wasn't there 😅

@Gen Unfortunately, no. Austin never actually mentioned Isaac (before any question about Isaac at least). As far as I'm aware, Austin specifically didn't speak about Isaac at all, only some other Co-founders did. (I was not aware that other co-founders would show up)

@KyleWan technically he spoke isaac's name once; when repeating a question that he then fielded to another co-founder. this still doesn't count ofc but he did speak about isaac...a bit

Note: has to be austin specifically

@KyleWan I think you should resolve this no, based on the description

Do you guys really think he would name and shame an addict’s misuse of the site? Even as a mention, why would he name Isaac personally? It seems really unprofessional (hence my confidence)

I can see him saying “we recently had a situation where someone overspent and now we’ve had to safeguard …” or whatever, but surely not “this Isaac dood lost so much money!! Site is crazy”

Now that I have my position I feel it’s worth actually discussing lol

@Gen If he mentions the situation without naming names, that’s still discussing the situation. Personally I think that we should learn from others’ mistakes where possible, and this certainly qualifies.

@JohnSmithb9be I may be misinterpreting the brackets in paragraph 2. I assumed he needed to be named and tied to the losses, not just a vague mention of real money losses or “someone recently lost a lot of money” as that could be Galen or spindle or anyone else

@Gen If a news reporter reports on a crash without naming the victim, that’s still reporting a crash.

@JohnSmithb9be Sure, huge difference between saying “John doe spent $33,000 USD on mana and was refunded after buying their own suicide stock” and “someone bought a bunch of mana and lost it”

The former is what that report might look like, the latter is what I’m expecting he might say (at best).

I’d be interested in hearing from @KyleWan about whether I’m expecting unintended specificity

@Gen Maybe I’m messed up, but I’m suddenly pondering the validity of a Will saying “donate all my mana to charity if I die”, setting up a suicide market, and then performing a charitable contribution.

Not an efficient way to do good, of course. But these markets are very interesting when you think them through.

@JohnSmithb9be Performing a charitable contribution 💀

Based as hell, don’t do it tho

@Gen Nah, super bad idea on every level

Not sure if it's clear enough, but Paragraph 2 and the resolution of the market are disjoint.

But yes, I was intending that either Austin brought up the name Isaac King and his money losses, OR someone in the audience asks about Isaac King AND directly responding to that question, Austin talks about his real money losses. Let me give some examples:

Resolves NO:

Q: "Austin, has anyone ever spent and lost real money on Manifold?"

A: "Yes. Someone has lost a lot of real money on Manifold, and manifold took steps to refund them."

Q: "Austin, what do you think of the Isaac King situation?"

A: "It's been a dramatic period. Isaac King lost a lot, and we're trying to find ways to prevent such an outcome in the future."

Q: "..."

A: "We're working on ways such that people do not spend as much real money on Manifold. This causes the potential for a lot of real life money loss."

Resolves YES:
Q: "Austin, what do you think of the Isaac King situation?"

A: "It's been a dramatic period. He has lost a lot of real money, so we're working on ways to prevent that in the future."

Q: "Austin, has anyone ever lost money?"

A: "Unfortunately, yes. Recently, user Isaac King lost..."

Up for Debate:

Q: "Austin, what do you think of Isaac King losing money?"

If Austin responds to this question (this question being asked is likely inevitable), whether he "brushed it off" or not will be discussed (before resolve). And yes, I am completely willing to resolve this as "NO" in this case because Austin may have been asked, but he never "discussed" the situation. Alternatively, if he does what I (and others) would consider "discussing", this will resolve YES.

Q: "The top whale for a while (or something else obviously referring to Isaac King) has..."

A: "Yes, the top whale for a while has lost a lot of real money"

I was leaning towards NO resolution on this one, and I still am. Feel free to try to come to a consensus about this, I will do my best to compensate anyone who's first impressions were not in line with this! I think that in this case may be @JohnSmithb9be. Let me know, if so. [Alternatively, if you guys come to a consensus of this resolves YES, I will try my best to compensate @Gen at least partially]

Realistically, there is a small chance of Isaac King being referred to indirectly, but who knows. I would like to reiterate that as this is a Proof School event, people at the event will have significantly more control over the YES resolution of this market. So... I would personally be very afraid of @Conflux if I were holding NO (He helped organize the event). I would also like to clarify that I wont resolve the market N/A for silly reasons - if Austin gets a cold and comes on May 18th instead, resolves NO no matter what. If Austin calls Isaac King "Isaac", and not "Isaac King", it still resolves YES. Basically, a happy medium between strict and reasonable resolution criteria.

Please let me know if there are any issues with this!

@KyleWan I'm sorry I still am not clear, does Isaac's name actually need to come up for this to resolve YES ?

What if Austing talks about WvM specifically and how someone lost real money in it but does not mention Isaac by name (but It could only be him that lost money in that market) ?

@Odoacre resolves NO. Isaacs name needs to come up in either the question or response.

@KyleWan thank you. I think that is the least important detail out if the whole story so I'll sell my yes. Do you mind making another market for the same question without the name clause? Alternatively I can make the market, but I won't be at proof school so I will need you to judge the outcome

@Odoacre On it!

@KyleWan I thought I responded a day or two ago to this comment but I can’t see my reply !

Thanks for the examples, I’m confident in my understanding and I think my initial understanding was pretty well in line with what you have outlined. - I also think it should be “NO” for that example you gave

I’m comfortable with my position, no need to compensate in any way. You clearly intend to resolve fairly and I trust you will do so.

Lots of limits for YES if you guys are still confident. Fill my orders!

@Gen This market's probability should be slightly higher than the actual probability that Austin will discuss this situation because of the potential 100M bonus

Wait, why is Austin visiting proof school?