This market will resolve YES if and when the monthly average level of atmospheric CO2, measured at Mauna Loa Observatory and adjusted for the average seasonal cycle, first reaches 426 ppm. The value relevant for resolution is displayed on the blue trend line of the following graph (for September 2024 it is 425,46 ppm):
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/graph.html
The resolution date for this market will shift based on market odds. It will move closer as the odds increase, and further into the future as the odds decrease. This is intended to allow for an assessment of when the resolution event will likely occur. Initially, with 50% odds, the resolution date is set 50 years in the future. If the odds rise to 75%, the resolution date changes to 25 years in the future. At 80%, it changes to 10 years; at 90%, to 5 years; at 95%, to 1 year; at 96%, to 3 months; at 97%, to 1 month; at 98%, to 1 week and at 99% to 1 day in the future. I have a predefined list of resolution dates for each value between 1% and 99% odds and will adjust the resolution after each trade that changes the odds by at least 1%.
The market will never resolve to NO, since there can be no proof that atmospheric CO2 will never reach 426 ppm.
1,000
3.00This feels like a terrible system. Suppose I buy 750 shares right now, bringing the probability to 99%. Does it then resolve tomorrow (to YES???)If you buy NO shares afterwards (why would you? you said it will never resolve to NO) then I can keep buying YES shares (taking your mana) I guess you can sell your YES shares at a slight profit, until you run out (so I'd have to buy another few hundred shares to get a (still guaranteed?) payout. Still doesn't make sense to me.
Prediction markets are cool but I really don't think this is the right tool for what you want.
If you want people to watch this graph, share it on twitter or make something with buckets
@MagnusAnderson Alternatively, I buy up to 99%, because it is currently above 460. Then you sell your yes stake, which brings the probability down to 70%, and kicks the resolution date to 30 years in the future.
Obviously liquidity is too low for you to win these attacks, and I'd just take whatever initial liquidity was injected. But this whole approach seems way too exploitable, and also a lot of work for you. Why?
@MagnusAnderson If you get rid of the "never NO" clause, it might mean that this would work better, though I still feel like it incentivizes play-betting to try to game the value at close rather than meaningful predicting.
Resolution date changed to 18.10.2033, at 82%