Additional poll, more feature-oriented, created:

https://manifold.markets/PatrickDelaney/if-you-had-to-pick-what-criterium-w#

If You Had to Pick, What Criterium Would Most Likely Make a Prediction Markets Platform, "Better" Than Manifold.Markets?

Re, this market: https://manifold.markets/Conflux/what-as-good-as-manifold-will-btes [link preview]Other related polls which may or may not be relevant to deciding criterium above: [markets]

C. Both, with a way to distinguish between them for users

@Ernie Why would someone hypothetically want both? Can you expound upon that?

@PatrickDelaney for serious things I want strong clear and guaranteed markets. For fun things I want easy free ones. As a bettor and as a market creator, I like that manifold has both.

I don't like the clearly trick or troll markets at the extreme free end but I rarely see them anymore so that's fine. I wouldn't want to lock down creation more.

But at the other end it would be great for the site if we could all be sure that claims like the lk-99 one will resolve correctly. Like, a way for a creator to opt in to community arbitration to increase security.

So basically I don't agree with deletionism but also want the ability to opt in to being disciplined.

@Ernie I'm passingly familiar with LK-99. Without thinking about what your own position was on that market...how would you put in place a system where such a market would be resolved appropriately? Don't put together a system that would have made you win that market in hindsight, build a generalized case that would potentially affect you negatively or positively in the future, but is inherently better.

For example, would you employ a physics PhD to review papers and have them resolve it (Expert Resolution)? Would you outsource the resolution to NIST, even if they aren't going to say something for years (Third Party Resolution)? Or something else?

@PatrickDelaney there would be levels of trust. I think it would help manifold if markets with tons of bettors and about important or very public things move lower on this list:

Lowest confidence

• A random user with no history

• Single trusted user

• User agrees to consult and negotiate with major bettors

• Jury

• Admin+jury

• ...+LLM jury in the future

• +Modeling on off-site markets?

• +Hiring real world arbitration companies

Highest confidence

This is just a rough idea. In general the point is that the site and users generally benefit from predictability in resolutions. But enforcing it through everywhere would be costly and controlling. Just like real life. Most real world interactions we have are not based on strict law. Only very serious issues of crime or money get an actual investigation, arbitration, or trial. And only even more serious ones get appeals, retrials, etc

In the same way when you buy a hot dog, you don't sign a contract for it. If they try to trick you and steal you money you handle it socially. But when buying a car or house you go more official.

Bad countries are ones where you can't even buy a hot dog without showing id, AND ones where you have no way to be sure not to be robbed even for large important transactions. Good countries are where you have both available to you and can choose.

@Ernie OK so what I'm reading is...

1. You see the algorithms by which Manifold displays larger markets as important (which they could be, I just don't know), but the presumption here is that the algorithms boost popular markets, which leads to more participants (as opposed to people organically discovering markets). Is that a correct interpretation of what you are thinking?

2. Given (1) above, there should be a weighted average formula A*w1 + B*w2 + C*w3...etc., with factors w1, w2, w3, etc... needing to represent trust, which thereby either hides or boots posts within how they display across all users pages. Is that correct?

Or...are you saying that it would have to do with limiting the transaction size on a market (e.g. you can only make a hot-dog size transaction, not a house size transaction) rather than the visibility? Or something else?

I think I get the, "countries," analogy, in that you're just saying, "this is a more desirable situation," but you're not saying anything about how things would be enforced, right? E.g. countries have actual physical policing and jail, etc. You are not suggesting an online platform could enforce similar to a country, but rather just...people don't like to be stolen from, and don't like to be regulated. Correct?

@PatrickDelaney I think algorithms are another story. I'm not sure what I would like there.

For markets I'm also not advocating any changes at all.

I'm exploring the idea that it would be nice if manifold had a way for users to know the rules that might apply to a market they're looking at. Cause now sometimes there's a mismatch between their assumption and the way the market gets resolved and they get unhappy from that which hurts manifold.

And for creators too, in some situations you may want to be able to assure your audience of how things will go more. If I had a huge market I'd like to be able to say pay manifold mana to help me gather info or run a poll, so that my bettors feel safer. And as manifold, I think it makes sense if they want to prevent huge last minute rug pulls or other malicious judging.

Nothing is absolute but giving people instruments and tools to get closer to this situation would help. Ratings, history, public info, their assurance that gross factual incorrect resolutions will be corrected.

With the countries analogy I'm saying something very basic: that there is no absolutely right answer that applies to all situations. People need to be able to choose behaviors and the site can give people more effective powers by giving people related tools as well as making plans and beliefs clear.

We're all here voluntarily and can leave whenever. Lawless places are scary and people generally don't like them, as are over regulated ones. But even within that there are individual choices. Meta abstract rules that globally impact freedom seem bad to me for example deletionism on Wikipedia or stack overflow. Local differentiation, communities, local culture and systems to solve problems are better than some abstract externally imposed rule. Although even regions like that can be okay - If people are allowed to leave.

@Ernie OK, I see...so don't have an underlying market or recommender mechanism, but rather display, "predictive warnings" or something like that on potentially risky markets...sort of like Grade A, Grade B, Grade C bonds with a breakdown of why?