🏅 Top traders

@traders Seems like this should resolve YES, right? Very unusual situation, though.

@MingCat

@MingCat Market specifies a "consistent source of payment," so it's NO

"This should be able to be reasonably expected to last for at least 6 months, so not a brief gig,"

Also NO

@ChurlishGambit "The date where the offer is accepted is relevant for this market, not the date he begins work. This should be able to be reasonably expected to last for at least 6 months, so not a brief gig, and offer around ~15 hours of weekly work."

In other words, at the time the offer was accepted (which is theoretically when the market should have resolved), it was reasonably expected to be consistent. I feel like resolving differently because the market resolved late is against the spirit of the criteria. I understand this is unusual, though. What do you think?

@MingCat Didn't last for six months.

What is the point of the market? What was it supposed to predict? What is its utility?

@MingCat The idea was to resolve upon acceptance of the offer, and not to have to wait 6 months out to see if the job would continue for the entirety of this duration. (If it were operating by that criteria, it wouldn't have resolved exactly at the end of 2025, but 6 months after accepting the offer)

The question wasn't whether he'd be employed at the end of 2025, but whether he would find a good-sounding job offer. (Which he did)

That would arguably have been simpler, but it's not the criteria of the market.

@MingCat Seems like a pointless sort of market

@ChurlishGambit username checks out

@MingCat i agree, the description says 'EXPECTED TO last 6 months', not just 'last 6 months'.

Should resolve YES I believe

@MingCat I don't think it matches the criteria of securing an offer if he lost it, no idea about what the specifics are though. I think a N/A is good but obviously I'm biased

@spiderduckpig oh from the screenshot @MingCat shared i interpreted it as Aaron got a JOB and then lost it, not got an offer and then lost it.

IMO if it's job it should resolve YES.

if it's offer I'm inclined towards N/A or NO.

@Hakari "Yes but then I lost it" seems pretty unambiguously like a job which was lost after accepting the offer to me, (Also worth noting Aaron has money on NO, yet he still didn't advocate for resolving this market NO.) and I don't really want to pester him any more about what I would imagine is a somewhat sore subject. I worry that resolving N/A would be overly conservative here, since this is, as far as I can see, not particularly ambiguous as covered by the criteria. I definitely get that this would be an unexpected resolution, though. I feel pretty confident in a YES here, but I want to handle this properly so I'll wait a bit more in case anyone has any other objections.

@MingCat Maybe double check with him that, at the time he accepted the job, it satisfied the above criteria? But if it did then I agree resolve YES.

@MingCat I think he plausibly also doesn't care too much about the mana tbh. For full transparency since I have the largest stake, I had been assuming that the market would resolve as soon as evidence came that he had gotten a qualifying job, and I was just going off of the "career status: 🤷" on his twitter and time decaying based off of that. More specifics could help but I agree that it would suck for anyone to pester him on primarily my behalf (since I own like 75% of no shares), so up to you to decide

@spiderduckpig Resolving YES

@MingCat resolve?

Best of luck Aaron!