Not 100% sure about what these terms cash out to, but will Balaji actually enter this bet with anyone?
https://twitter.com/balajis/status/1636797265317867520
This resolves entirely on whether he publicly credibly seems to have agreed to this bet. It doesn't matter whether he later reneges on it, or disputes the original terms after the fact, or resolves it honestly. It just needs to be clear that he and at least one counterparty have made an agreement substantially similar to the terms of this bet.
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ402 | |
| 2 | Ṁ164 | |
| 3 | Ṁ137 | |
| 4 | Ṁ132 | |
| 5 | Ṁ131 |
People are also trading
Should resolve YES per https://manifold.markets/chrisjbillington/will-the-1m-vs-1btc-bet-between-jam
Seems like this is closely related to the substantially more liquid market: https://manifold.markets/chrisjbillington/will-the-1m-vs-1btc-bet-between-jam
At time of this writing, this market is at 91% and the linked is at 60% -- implying a 31% chance that the Medlock thing falls through but he makes this bet with someone else. This seems high to me, so I'm selling here and buying there.
https://twitter.com/moskov/status/1637639520727494656 Balaji turned down a bet with 50x time the stake
@jack We’ll give it some time. Gonna wait at least until both funds are confirmed to be in escrow
@LarsDoucet How would the market resolve if they go ahead with the backup plan described here: https://twitter.com/jdcmedlock/status/1639359402737295361?
@NamesAreHard That would still count if it goes through because it's substantially similar and both parties seem like they'd be happy with it (Medlock was gonna give most of the money away anyways). And besides, based on the initial wording of the market as written, I think this might already qualify to resolve YES:
"This resolves entirely on whether he publicly credibly seems to have agreed to this bet. It doesn't matter whether he later reneges on it, or disputes the original terms after the fact, or resolves it honestly. It just needs to be clear that he and at least one counterparty have made an agreement substantially similar to the terms of this bet."
But I will hold out a little longer -- say one more week, to see if we get some really clear-cut clarity and avoid having to split hairs.
If the money winds up in escrow on both sides, it's a definite YES for sure regardless of what happens after.
If he chickens out on a technicality, I think it still resolves YES because this was just about whether he "credibly seems to have agreed to the bet."
It would resolve NO only if when I go through and evaluate the communications from Balaji it looks like he never actually agreed to the bet, which honestly seems pretty unlikely at this point.
@LarsDoucet Thank you for clarifying and I fully agree, I was "NO" here just because of arbitraging the other market and asked to be sure of the differences between the two.
@LarsDoucet if the money goes to charity either way, nothing is at stake and it is therefore not a bet.
@AndrewHebb Hard disagree, people make bets like this all the time with the money going to charity and we still call them bets. As long as Balaji agrees to cough up the dough to somebody, and Medlock has say over where it goes, that counts in my eyes.
@LarsDoucet people make bets like this all the time, but it's not the bet they made. Donating money to charity is not the same thing as gambling.
@AndrewHebb This is a purely semantic discussion. You’re welcome to maintain your own private definition, I’m making clear which ones I’m using as the market creator.