The norm around here, at least since I signed up four months ago, is that it's perfectly okay, with at least some hints I've seen indicating that longer ago it was encouraged.

Now, I do not do it, and include in my descriptions that I do not, even on highly objective questions. I think that would be a healthier norm for Manifold in the long run. But that's very much in the realm of my personal opinion.

I think it depends. In something clear-cut that anyone can verify easily (e.g. “will DeSantis fall to third place on 538’s website at any point in 2023?”), I think it’s fine.

In something that requires an interpretation to resolve (e.g. “will there be enough evidence that X really happened”), betting creates a clear conflict of interest when resolving.

Generally it's fine, but this type of behavior is very cringe.

If there’s no discretion in the resolution, there’s no potential for conflict of interest. Otherwise, there is, both in appearance and in reality.

That’s not the current rule, but personal ethics can transcend rules. It makes markets better.

A market maker can costlessly opine on their market. That can improve the flow of ideas.

Objective markets with no tricks/gaming/subjectivity? Go for it, zero issues.

Subjective markets? Sometimes OK, but be really up front about it, and don't make anyone feel like you took advantage of your position as the market creator. For instance, don't take a subjective market that's swinging largely one way where you've given no indication that you don't expect to resolve it that way, and drop a bet in the other direction and immediately resolve the market, making a pile of money unexpectedly at everyone else's expense.

I think it's worth stating in the market description whether you intend to bet or not. People have different assumptions and intuitions about these things. Just give the traders what they need to know to decide if they want to take part or not.

@Fion Good point. I will keep this mind.

It's fine to bet on your own questions if the resolution criteria are unambiguous. For small questions, it's helpful to have an extra trader. If the resolution criteria are up for interpretation even slightly, though, you signal that you will resolve fairly and impartially by not betting.

@MaxMorehead Do you think if criteria is clear, it should be ok? So far I voted on my own questions as soon as I created them. So the first trader was able to see that I was not impartial to the options.

@Fatih Yes. I did this just today. I will probably add “not voting on my own questions [|without warning]” after taking initial position or “once I take my opening position and another trader has traded.”

You’re asking good questions. Just find pragmatic ways to clarify your norms.