🏅 Top traders

@NGK I believe these markets can resolve

Is this by the end of March or by the start of?

@Nat05b9 End of the month

@NGK And I assume that's also the case for your other analogous markets (the ones with the same format but for different months)?

@NGK And last question sorry, how will these markets resolve if they demonstrate propellant transfer without completing a full orbit? Your February market defines orbit as as completing at least one revolution, but from what SpaceX has said it sounds like they're targeting "near-orbital" such that it re-enters just before completing one orbit. If this happens but they still demonstrate propellant transfer in orbital conditions (but just not in a true orbit), how will they resolve?

@Nat05b9 All good. I believe the goal with propellant transfer was to reach orbit then demonstrate the capability. I will quickly reread the information. Based on what the goal of IFT3 is it will be one of these and I’ll update you then:

• If IFT3 aims to be true orbital

Will resolve Yes if they reach orbit and demonstrate propellant transfer

Will resolve No if they reach true orbital and fail to demonstrate propellant transfer

Will resolve No if they fail to reach true orbital and succeed in demonstrating propellant trans

• If IFT3 aims near orbital

I’ll redefine the parent market to be succeeds near-orbital flight profile. I’ll define this as touching down with the specified debris zone.

I’ll comment here when I’ve decided

@Nat05b9

IFT3 plans:

https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxSnl8J96XUzY43RZ8WxTcJVBoEknjqji9?si=yQUOdCUXq3XoK622

So it will follow the first criteria:

• If IFT3 aims to be true orbital

Will resolve Yes if they reach orbit and demonstrate propellant transfer

Will resolve No if they reach true orbital and fail to demonstrate propellant transfer

Will resolve No if they fail to reach true orbital and succeed in demonstrating propellant trans

@Nat05b9 Yep exactly

@NGK Hmmm, yes I've seen that presentation and it does sort of seem to imply they're going for full orbital but I'm not entirely convinced that is the case; partially because in that same presentation (at https://youtu.be/6xLmBLWDSHo?t=2951) Elon also says that IFT-2 "would have made it to orbit", which we know they weren't targeting full orbit, and therefore makes me think that when he says 'orbit' he just means near-orbit.

@NGK May also be worth having a look at the linked question, the market currently predicts that they're not aiming for full orbit, and Mqrius and Chris Billington have a good discussion in the comments looking at everything that's been said so far

@Nat05b9 Hm okay. I might keep it as a Schrödingers orbit for now then. Depending on what the stated goals of IFT-3 are. If they’re clarified further in the future/on the official webcast of the launch I’ll change the resolution criteria. I don’t want this market to necessarily be about reaching orbit, but mostly if starship will achieve both its mission objectives as defined by SpaceX. And not the general “success” because starship went further than last time.

@NGK please don’t fundamentally the change the meaning of this market after it’s been open. Bets have been made against the criteria you’ve already laid out as at least one orbit. I would not have taken this bet if you were only talking about near orbital. If you really want to change the criteria, please mark this N/A and open a new market, so those of us that bet on the original criteria aren’t forced to take the loss.

@Dylan03d54 tbh I've been betting assuming near-orbital would be fine. Otherwise the market values wouldn't have made any sense compared to this one

/Mqrius/will-starship-ift3-try-for-full-orb

All these markets were higher than 4% when I bet on them. Though I guess I should've read the description better.

Hm, so this is kind of a mess. N/A everything and make a new multimarket? A multimarket would also centralize the discussion.

@Mqrius Seconding this

@Dylan03d54

I agree with Dylan - description was very clear when I was betting a few hours ago, would not be at all happy if it was changed.

I would also point out that I arbitraged these markets against Chris's and Mqrius's and so whilst NAing looks attractive it is not 'cost-free' nor obviously fairer.

@NGK Schrodinger's orbit is completely unworkable - the probability depends more on this specific detail than on anything else.

Don't change it, it's too late for that. I too bet assuming full orbit wasn't necessary, because it's not really relevant and I didn't read closely enough. But then I bet them all down after @JoshuaWilkes pointed it out to me.

I also didn't see this comment thread before then, because I didn't realise you had a bunch of markets and had only bet in one of them before today.

Lessons everyone should take away:

• Making a bunch of markets that could have been a multi makes clarifying things hard

• Don't over-specify market criteria. More criteria isn't always better, every additional criterion increases the risk of the market becoming about something unrelated to what you wanted to ask.

Either NA or leave them open with the full orbit criterion unchanged. But edit the titles to say "full orbit" or something, to reduce the chances people miss what is actually the most important aspect of the market.

@chrisjbillington Fair enough. I’ll leave it as is.