Which features will Manifold ship in 2026? The feature must appear live on the site before the end of 2026. (External PRs that have been merged will count.)
Update 2026-01-07 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): For Subscription plan: Must be a real subscription (not a one-time purchase without automatic monthly payments). Can potentially be in Mana rather than real currency.
Update 2026-05-16 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): For Voluntary jury duty for resolving contentious markets: This answer does not need to be implemented by the Manifold team directly — external PRs that have been merged will also count toward resolution.
1,000People are also trading
Checks out to me. This seemed like a UI change to me. And if it wasn't, that's egg on my face. https://manifold.markets/post/changelog-october-8th-2026-midterms#SE6u58RO
@Quroe it changed the default settings and discovery settings on the browser page. I’ll let Evan decide if it counts, because we’re actually not applying the UI change (it’s going to revert, probably) following the test
I will test something else next tho, and keep doing so until we improve the browse page
Oh boy, I hope I interpreted correctly that it didn't need to be implemented from this comment. It seemed like the thing being tested is what mattered, not that it succeeded the test and "passed inspection".
Luckily, nobody cashed out to my buy.
@EvanDaniel I continue to think that decimal limit orders on markets above a certain liquidity would be very good, especially on multiple choice markets!
@Quroe I don't see why this would suddenly be a priority when everyone stonewalled and ignored it at a time when the site was actually getting frequent changes.
@NivlacM What constitutes an improvement in liquidity handling? Adding instantaneous liquidity rather than the drip over time liquidity?
@ShitakiIntaki dunno. I kinda thought this was already done. All I want is to be able to add liquidity to a market and get my money back when it resolves
@NivlacM That has been the case for a very very long time. You get a proportional share of the liquidity you put in returned from the pool's value upon resolution. That would not be a new feature.
This would be really really good imo, is there a reason that this is structurally hard to implement? It would be great on large multiple choice markets like Dem/Rep nominee odds, TIME POTY, etc
EDIT: I assumed this meant decimal limit orders below 10% or above 90%, but I guess not?
@bens This is not a technical issue, it is a product decision. We used to be able to bet in those ranges.
@Eliza oh wait... I assumed this meant being able to set decimal limit orders... you already can bet YES on options below 1% on multiple choice markets and can't bet NO on them, that's fine although slightly odd... I think being able to set a 2.5% limit order on a random presidential candidate would be pretty helpful though
@bens yes, I meant decimal limit orders like 2.5% or 0.7% or whatever. Exact details don't matter for this market, as long as it's finer options than currently.
@JasonMendoza2008 I personally found most of the 'product decisions' from the era of that decision very very hard to actually trace back to a core guiding idea. But in this case it's some combination of:
sometimes people lost huge massive amounts of mana like 50,000, because they bet a 99.1% to 99.9% and it resolved against them and they didn't really understand the difference between 99.1% and 99.9% or how to do that safely
the site overall was really bad at predicting things in this range and instead of making it better at that, they decided to just ignore it