If humans are wiped out, who will resolve this question?

@ShyamJayesh an AI.

/MartinRandall/an-ai-is-trustworthyish-on-manifold

@JonathanRay you got a lot of mana locked in this market that resolves in 2030. I recommend we sell out of this market at 6% to get mana back and take down the market that resolves at the end of 2024 (the LK-99 market) for a much better return. TBH, the odds for both markets are around the same

The problem with these markets is that I don't think it will be obvious, particularly in the later years like 2100, what the difference is between human, artificial, and alien intelligence. All of these things will likely be so interconnected that it will be impossible to define what a "human" is. The definition of "human" will continue to change, just as someone in 1 AD might look at a person who has two shoulder joint replacements and a prosthetic leg as not being human.

@SteveSokolowski That might be the case. But I can also imagine we are wiped out by some equivalent of a paperclip maximizer that is very clearly not human. Condition on humanity being wiped by AI in 2030, I give very small likelihood to not being able to tell the difference.

"If humanity is not around but AI(s) are then this market resolves to YES." - do you have an AI that will esolve the market or wh does that?o

@ProjectVictory not yet.

Is there any progress on how (if) the loan system is going to change?

This summer, Manifold have been taken by a collective delusion about AI risk. It was not only a few whales otherwise it would have been corrected by the majority. I think it was partially caused by a lobbying effort to get AI financing. It was also a way to signal being part of a given group. N/A this market now would be a gift to sloppy predictors and punishment for those who tried to correct this error.

@Zardoru you spent m5265 on this market and you have been loaned back m5258, so if I n/a the market the only impact on your mana balance will be +m7. I will be down much more.

My preference continues to be that Manifold reverses the rushed decision to fine two users based on the chance they will be unable to repay loans in 2030.

@MartinRandall I don't care about balance, I would care about lost profit.

@MartinRandall I believe on NA both balance and profit would be zeroed out (the $M7 difference of the cost that remains un-loaned is irrelevant). Such accounting ignores the fact that @Zardoru currently has a $M1.1k unrealized gain that they would lose if NA, as well as the remaining ~270 potential gain if this eventually resolves NO, as it likely would in 6y.

In essence, you’ll be clawing back all the gains made by good predictors and returning it all to those who made “wrong bets” here (regardless of their reasons or lack thereof, justified beliefs, signaling, motivated protest, gaming the system, or irrational behavior, market and creator should be agnostic to all but the relevant facts upon resolution). [Edit: perhaps most significantly, you’ll be refunding Manifold for all the subsidies they provided, both to you through bonuses, and “good” traders, like Zardoru and myself, through the AMM. This likely makes Manifold the biggest beneficiary of an NA resolution (perhaps after Catnee and Nikita but would they have “sunk” their mana here if it weren’t for those subsidies?), and which I’m sure they would be delighted with.]

This indeed looks like it punishes exactly the wrong people for what I agree with you is an unfair and whimsical decision by admins.

Warning notice to bettors. The admins have decided that large loans to YES bettors on this market are preemptively "bad loans" and have fined bettors mana for having large loans. That was not my intention in creating this market and I may need to resolve the market n/a to avoid my market being disrupted in this way.

@MartinRandall Source?

@IsaacKing

https://discord.com/channels/915138780216823849/1188163136646299750/1188163828521898035

@ian can explain further. The 540k appears to be on this market and the 2100 market.

@MartinRandall How would it disrupt the market?

I would advocate not to N/A the market, as significant effort was directed to NO betting, which could have been spent elsewhere. Would closing the market solve it as well?

@MartinRandall Jesus Christ.

I will be very annoyed if this market is N/Ad, as that's M$40,000 of my opportunity cost wasted. But that's Manifold's fault, not yours, the N/A seems correct in your position.

I think I'm going to write something up on why Manifold can't be trusted and forecasters and altruists should stick to other platforms. This is getting egregious. Just completely cavalier with people's balances and forecasting records, no desire whatsoever to honor their platform's implicit promises or take responsibility for their own mistakes.

@MartinRandall NA would be a hugely unsatisfactory outcome.

@Irigi no, closing the market will not restore mana to the two yes bettors who have been fined large amounts, whereas n/a would.

@Fion I completely agree, I am unsatisfied with this situation and would like the admins to fix it.

I'm also annoyed that a 2030 resolution market suddenly has drama two days before Christmas. These loans have been in effect since July. I will wait till January before taking any decisions here.

@MartinRandall Obviously, humanity will be around in 2030, and there is a very good chance Manifold will be around as well.

As long as mana can be exchanged for charitable donations, that means markets like this with large loans on YES are really bad for Manifold. If anything, odd that they did not notice it sooner.

@IsaacKing Obviously (even if not to you), humanity will be around in 2030, and that makes large loans on YES really bad for Manifold here, at least as long as they have the mana/charity thing.

@MartinRandall Why did Manifold fine them for having bad loans rather than just making them repay the loans? Fines seem like something for when there's been wrongdoing. Seems like the "bad loans" problem could be resolved just by taking back the loans.

They could even do it gradually, at 4% per day like all the positive loans and then they probably wouldn't even send anybody's balance negative.

@Fion Do we know that this happened?

I assumed it was a repayment, in the sense that they took mana in order to reduce the balance of the loans. There would no different effect on their current situation from this. Do we know they did not reduce the loan balance?

@DavidBolin I don't know anything tbh - I'm just getting worked up on rumours and scared of losing my hard-won NO profits here. Maybe I'll quiet down until I actually know what the situation is. :P

@Fion NO on this type of market are easily-won profits, not hard-won, for one thing.

@MartinRandall I have to say that I am against N/A ing because I have been arbing this market with my own multi-choice market, and N/A ing here will mean I either N/A or accept a likely loss on what I thought were risk-free arbs.

@DavidBolin You can look at @Catnee and @NikitaSkovoroda profile to see both the loans still outstanding and the fines. You can view the Discord thread to read the stated logic for the fines. There may be other commentary that I'm not aware of.

@MartinRandall Well, I can't view the Discord thread without extra effort, as I no longer have the email address I used to sign up with and it wants verification :)

@DavidBolin I think there is a clear chance that Manifold is not around in 2030. It's more common for startups to fail than to succeed. A soft landing is likely but not certain. There are also catastrophic risks as you know.

@Fion I didn't see the Discord thread and the loans do still show up on their profiles but the message on the payment says "early loan repayment," so without evidence otherwise I would assume eventually they plan to put that against the loans.

@DavidBolin Ian said "if I'm still alive lol" which does not sound like someone committed to restore this mana in 2030.

I think this is facially inaccurate. The loan was a "bad loan" almost entirely because the loan was for 500k in mana on a portfolio with net worth 30k.

@jacksonpolack Bad loans are accounted as losses for the creditor (Manifold) since you can’t claw back from a bankrupt debtor, nor there is such a thing as “negative net worth” IRL. But since mana is actually a reputation currency, they can set you to negative infinity (banned) if they choose to.

Sure, they can do anything they want on their platform, but this would be banning debtors for loans Manifold forced on them (real mafia-style shit) and the user rightly spent it as if there’s no tomorrow.

Edit to add: you do realize there was no way to avoid taking these “bad loans”, they were forced on every single user, every single day, on all their investments? This only changed recently.

@deagol I don't think that's a fair description, Catnee understood the loan system perfectly well. He could have chosen not to re-invest them and become so over-leveraged.

Also tagging @ian since I see he happens to be online.

@Joshua of course @Catnee (as well as @Mira) understood the system even better than admins, and they signaled it was a problem for Manifold (not the users) months ago, and were dismissed. This final hit is their way of sticking it to the mobster in charge.

Bad loans are accounted as losses for the creditor (Manifold) since you can’t claw back from a bankrupt debtor, nor there is such a thing as “negative net worth” IRL. But since mana is actually a reputation currency, they can set you to negative infinity (banned) if they choose to.

It's more like - manifold runs a platform where Catnee had a margin account, with 600k in balance available to spend loaned by manifold. Manifold chose to stop providing margin (600k in balance) to catnee. That money wasn't spent on anything. So the term 'bad loans' isn't being used in the same sense it is IRL - they're "manifold loans", not real loans.

@Joshua Traders understood “the loan system” of zero-interest infinite credit with no recourse for the creditor, designed by Manifold itself with non-financial goals (engagement on long-term markets). It was forced free money whether you needed it or not by design but months later oh shit now it’s a liability, make them pay or else.

@jacksonpolack It’s far from margin loans, those have requirements, high interest, and forced liquidation in case your investments go south, all sensible risk management. Manifold chose to be loose on all that and now blames users for their growth hack tactics backfiring.

Why did Manifold fine them for having bad loans rather than just making them repay the loans? Fines seem like something for when there's been wrongdoing. Seems like the "bad loans" problem could be resolved just by taking back the loans

The "fine" was specifically characterized in that discord as paying back the loan. The transaction is literally tagged "loan repayment".

Manifold put that free zero-interest 'mana' into catnee's account for months, and catnee didn't spend any of it. Manifold then removed that mana from catnee's account. I don't think catnee was particularly wronged here.

@jacksonpolack setting someone's balance to zero removes their ability to interact with the platform in many meaningful ways. It's similar to banning them. These actions were up until now used as punishment for misbehavior.

@jacksonpolack

catnee didn't spend any of it

Catnee did it back in June-July and still kept getting the loans, so gave up. But Mira did spend it, and finally set off the bomb yesterday as a “Merry Christmas” parting gift, which is why the cleanup is happening now.

@jacksonpolack They did not change the loan balance however (which also shows on their profile when you check that market.) However, they could be planning to do that eventually and I assume they will.

@DavidBolin I agree they should absolutely change the loan balance.

@deagol They were not forced to spend the mana on betting YES on a market that is absolutely going to resolve NO, if it ever resolves at all.

@deagol He did spend it on this market; that is why it still shows on his profile.

setting someone's balance to zero removes their ability to interact with the platform in many meaningful ways. It's similar to banning them.

If not allowing catnee's balance to go above their net worth prevents him from using the platform because he's overleveraged, so can't get more loans, and he's spent all of current his balance (on a 100k mana limit order that got cancelled...), that's catnee's choice! He would've still had 30k available to spend if he hadn't placed that order.

@jacksonpolack They did not change the loan balance however (which also shows on their profile when you check that market.) However, they could be planning to do that eventually and I assume they will.

Yes, I believe this was a quick fix in before the holidays.

@MartinRandall I've just caught up on the discord and I think your characterisation here was misleading. I don't see a problem with Manifold's actions in this and I think you're somewhat at fault for threatening to NA the market, getting me (and probably others) worked up over not very much.

(Reading between the lines I think you might be using NA as a sort of threat to try to persuade Manifold to change their decision. If this is the case, I think it's wrong. You shouldn't have extra persuasive power just because you're the creator of a particularly large market. If I have misunderstood the situation then I apologise.)

@Fion What did they say on the discord?

@DavidBolin

they were not forced to spend the mana on betting YES

so what? are admins now deciding which markets and on which outcomes users can spend their loans on? i was never told i had to invest safely because it’s loaned, their money on the line. it breaks a fundamental promise of the platform.

@DavidBolin I'm afraid it was quite long and I'm not sure I can do a good summary. I think most of the key points are in this thread now anyway.

For me personally, the most important point is that it was only a "fine" in the sense that that was the mechanic by which the action was taken. It was in fact a forced loan repayment. And they didn't even send Catnee or Nikita's balances below zero as far as I can tell, which was kind of them. (I assume the loans are still positive.)

But Martin framed it as a fine for having a bad loan, and they also framed it as being about this market. I don't think it was about this market specifically: just the fact of having a load of mana at their disposal despite having very low-value assets.

I'm going to try to extricate myself from this (not that I've been particularly active). There are people on both (all?) sides who are more informed than me and nobody needs to hear my opinion.

Also it's Christmas Eve. I'm going to go and wrap some presents. Peace and love, everybody. <3

@jacksonpolack I believe the net worth 30k was because of the trading losses, the original worth when the loans were obtained was much bigger. (The only difference is that in Catnee's case, the losses were planned, as this was a doom signalling bet.)

I am really concerned by how arbitrarily this happened and my trust in the Mana currency is quite shaken now. As I see it, Catnee followed the rules as they were valid in time these loans were given, not intentionally breaking them or cheating. And the rules were that the payback of the loans is at the market resolution / selling your position. Knowing that people can be unexpectedly forced to payback the loans any time and effectively get bankrupted (or their money would be locked in very long term markets, which is very similar) I am not sure anymore, whether it is safe to buy shares in markets resolving in far future, or to take loans for that matter.

I believe that the loan system needs to be designed in such a way that the users are safe from getting into the state where admins think the user has over-extended too much and needs to be shut down. My understanding of the loan system is such that:

1] The loans by design create possibility for situations when users end up with strongly negative accounts, sometimes just by poor trading, not by exploiting anything. This would not be possible with real money, but with play money it is. (Which I always thought is the great advantage of Manifold that it can afford to give the loans). I also understand that loans are very important, noone would be betting in time horizon longer than few months otherwise.

2] I do not see how it would be possible to prevent situation, when someone has, say, 200k Mana, invests, and in time has 600k loan. Then because he trades poorly, ends up with balance 20k, and is suddenly 30x over-extended instead of 3x. (Or straight negative).

3] The system as it is now does not prevent repeating the situation, although the min(current value, invested value) fix stops the loans sooner, so the situation would not be so likely. In my view, it might make sense to reduce amount of new loans proportionally to the current over-extension, e.g. by calculating it from max(0, min(current value, invested value) - total loans / 10) (or similar factor). It would prevent single user from going into so negative numbers. It would still allow users who are not so over-extended to bet on the far future markets, but people would in general be much, much more picky into which ones. This is just a random thought right now, maybe the correct fix would be different. In any case, I see as very important that people are not (unexpectedly!) punished for using the system as it is set.

Sorry for the wall of text. Am I wrong?

Yeah, I think you misunderstood what happened.

And the rules were that the payback of the loans is at the market resolution / selling your position. Knowing that people can be unexpectedly forced to payback the loans any time and effectively get bankrupted (or their money would be locked in very long term markets, which is very similar) I am not sure anymore, whether it is safe to buy shares in markets resolving in far future, or to take loans for that matter

Catnee was not forced to sell any shares. He had been given 600k mana worth of loans on a portfolio that was initially larger than 600k, and had since declined in value to 30k. The 600k of mana had (more or less) just been sitting in his balance for months untouched, as he'd been inactive. The mana was simply removed from his balance and (informally) used to cancel out his loans. This doesn't increase risk for people who are buying shares with loans.

I believe that the loan system needs to be designed in such a way that the users are safe from getting into the state where admins think the user has over-extended too much and needs to be shut down.

I agree, and the manifold team is currently working on this. It's christmas though, it'll take time.

@Fion Thanks for explaining your take. I consider this fine ("forced loan repayment") to be 50% about this market because it's the second largest loan for Catnee (m264k) and his largest loss (m230k on an investment of m283k).

Additionally, Ian stated that he was only taking action on loans that were "in the range of 100k+ AND are on markets that can't resolve", by which I think he was referring to the argument that AI doom markets cannot resolve YES.

I've always assumed these interest-free loans are callable at any time. Maybe they made other promises on discord or somewhere.

@travis I am not saying it was stated anywhere otherwise, but I assumed they would be collected according to the stated rules. Why would anyone take a loan that could effectively disable their account when collected, if the collection could happen any time?

@Irigi All sorts of reasons. In real world finance, people trade on margin. If your trades turn out badly, the account is disabled until you deposit more cash or sell some positions.

In principle, an interest-free loan can't harm you. You can always just ignore it and let the cash build up. And I'm not saying Manifold handled this well, obviously it's affected some people negatively. But I don't see what it has to do with the resolution of this market.

@deagol I very much agree with this. Manifold seems hell bent on doing all kinds of random changes except for fixing the actual real problems

@MartinRandall I agree with Fion that NAing this market seems more like a threat/punishment than a well-intentioned consideration.

It was well known that changes to Manifold's loan system were likely within the next 6 years.

Catnee hasn't even been using the site, and wouldn't have received these loans in the first place if they weren't automatic.

To NA this market with 1000 bettors over a 'market disruption' of a single inactive bettor would be a clear overreach.

@travis This market originally had cost basis loans, so it was safe to trade according to one's beliefs about 2030 without regard to the market clearing price in the interim.

Now that Manifold has started revoking loans based on market clearing price it makes these markets much more like whale bait markets, where large bets on one side can forcibly liquidate traders on the other side. This appears to be asymmetric where it depends on what Ian thinks will happen in 2030. That is a very different market.

I didn't intend to create the type of market this has been turned into and earlier traders didn't intend to trade in it. Resolving n/a unwinds those trades, leaving only the opportunity cost.

My preference is that the arbitrary forced loan repayments are reversed and this market and its traders are treated equally to other long-term markets. Hopefully that will happen when Ian and others return.

Wait, you understand that none of catnee's actual positions were liquidated right? Spent shares can't be sold.

You'd said elsewhere you'd be fine with a change to the loan algorithm that didn't give you loans if networth was above balance if it was applied to everyone. But that is the same as individualized action with respect to this latter complaint.

Catnee's net worth would still make them very overleveraged if this market was 10%

@DanM There were two bettors impacted, Catnee and Nikita. Catnee was not inactive, the action was taken in a bizarre rush precisely because he was active again.

@jacksonpolack they had already stopped giving Catnee loans in September. Reclaiming loans that were offered on a "repay on sale or resolution" basis, as a one-off targeted only on two traders in this market, is different.

@travis I would be fine with any rule for loan collection, was it stated beforehand. E.g. in real world finance, there is a leverage loan, which gets collected once the selling price of the position on given market is equal to the loan on that market. It is collected by forcibly selling positions of the trader on given market. (However, for big traders, it would probably destabilize the market system, I am not sure. But it would be fair).

The one you propose (blocking accounts with zero net worth until more deposit) would not help much, I am afraid. Because the net worth is calculated from current market price, not the price that can be obtained by selling. Catnee's balance was still positive, yet he would be in very red numbers had he tried sell everything at once.

But I want to say: I am also fine with these loan collection rules (if the impact on the trading system is not detrimental - and if there is a possibility to get rid of the loans in the old system before the rules are changed / if the old loans are not affected by the new rules). But collecting at random by admin decision (and particularly if it leads to N/A of market affecting many traders) seems arbitrary and hurts the trust in the currency.

@traders : As punishment for gross incompetence and lying, I have fined Manifold Markets M615k so as to match the amount stolen from Catnee and Nikita, by activating the 2nd of my 4 Artifacts of Power.

Such fine is intended only as a punitive measure to incentivize and reinforce platform-trader alignment, and does not restore any mana that rightfully belongs to Catnee.

@MartinRandall Ahh yes bail out the rich people who made bad bets

you should run for office