🏅 Top traders
# | Name | Total profit |
---|---|---|
1 | Ṁ57 | |
2 | Ṁ42 | |
3 | Ṁ36 | |
4 | Ṁ17 | |
5 | Ṁ15 |
@JosephNoonan I think it’s hillarious how on this place that’s filled to the brim with degenerate gambler-statisticians and absolutely brilliant devs and conceptual philosophy and math galaxy minds, and on the absolutely most momentous market event resolution ever, the most critical single piece of evidence, a simple weighted average of some numbers, something that should happen within milliseconds of the market closing, can not be uncontrovertibly ascertained five hours or who knows maybe a whole day later, since the brilliant geniuses can’t count, add, much less divide, or agree on whether the hairs in my balls contribute toward my average hair density. No wonder their number one worry is AI alignment, and what their cult leader of choice tweeted from the crapper this morning. 😂
/rant
I know you and Alex and Conflux and so many others here are being extremely deliberate and careful on this, and I appreciate that. Thanks for the exciting markets, and all the laughs. :)
Latest info means this resolves YES if the average over the last 16.5 hr stays under ~6.5%
@JosephNoonan Can you confirm that you will not be rounding the average to the nearest integer percent before making the <=37% test? For example, say the average is 36.56%, this would still resolve YES, correct? Just covering all bases.
@deagol Yes, although that would still be the case even if I was rounding, since it's <=. But if the average is, say 37.2%, then this will resolve NO, since I wouldn't round it down to 37%.