Don't fix what is not broken is generally a good rule to go by. Is there something broken that you are trying to fix?

I don't see how it makes sense for a social betting site to spend dev effort building features that incentivize interactions between users and then proceed to make it tougher to actually use that feature.

New user here. I got really excited to think that I could use Manifold to synthesize various information into a probability for me. I bought 10,000 mana with the intent to make a monthly buy of the same amount to subsidize a recurring market about the eruption potential of an active volcano I live next to (so kinda important to me and about 100,000 other people). Then I discovered the high subsidy tax and only subsidized 1,000 mana. At that level, I haven't received good results about my niche question (unsurprisingly).

Before I knew about the tax, I was prepared to reinvest any unused subsidy from month to month, while continuing to buy $100 USD worth of mana each new month, to attract people to my market (which might include new users, such as the many geologists in my area who study the volcano and so have well informed opinions). Now that I realize that any unused subsidy will be halved within 3 months and decimated within 9 months, I don't think recurring buys of mana is a good solution.

So, instead of continuing to be a paying customer, I plan to just occasionally trade for fun. I like Manifold a lot, but I'm also now on the lookout for a system where the things I want are less heavily taxed. I realize my situation may be atypical, but I figured it was worth posting somewhere in case other people are making similar decisions that would otherwise be undocumented.

@harding No that's pretty typical, I've also largely stopped subsidizing markets due to the fee.

Note that reinvesting it indefinitely wouldn't have worked anyway, since it would have been captured by the traders. (The whole point of a subsidy is that it provides additional incentive to traders in the market by increasing their profit potential.)

@IsaacKing right, I don't mind the subsidy going to traders---attracting traders is my goal. I just want to be able to roll over the unused part. A 33% tax per rollover makes that uninteresting to me.

I voted Yes. I think it's worth trying but I would love to see a report on changes in subsidization habits from site users in the time periods both before and after this change happens. If someone has the means to create such a report I would really appreciate seeing it in a week or two or three.

Any update? It's been a while. Does anyone have any stats about the rate of subsidizing markets before and after this change?

I know a lot of people still do straight Boosting.

If subsidising wasn't taxed, I think that instead of boosting, I might have subsidised some markets that I think I'm right about (but don't expect other traders to move much). It would be a straightforward way to convert mana into profit when I think I have an edge. But the tax makes it net negative to net worth, if that's all there is to it, which hurts profit-making ability in the long run. Maybe this is good! People shouldn't be incentivised to convert balance into profit quite so easily.

I'm still incentivised to boost though. With boosting, when it works (which isn't often, but you only need to boost a small amount to test the waters so it's cheap to find out), you can net more in subsidised profits than the cost of the boost. If someone bets, no matter how small, Manifold adds a Ṁ20 subsidy, more than the Ṁ10 cost of the boost. And if someone bets against you, all the better! On the right market, this can pay handsomely: I don't remember how much I spent boosting this market, but I'm sure it was less than Ṁ11k.

So boosts are still great, but I'm very hesitant to subsidise, because of the tax. Maybe I should experiment and see if a large subsidy attracts some more savvy users, creating activity that then attracts others. But then there's the risk the sophisticated traders will eat my lunch.

I guess one crucial distinction is that I'm attempting to attract unsophisticated traders in order to profit off of them. If I instead wanted someone wiser than me to come by and correct a mispricing about something I care about the answer to, maybe subsidising would still make sense. But I'm usually on the profit-seeking side of things, rather than the information-seeking.

@chrisjbillington Your boost farming has been amazing this month, and I think it is under-utilized by other traders at this time. Boosts appear to be incredibly useful right now when placed at the right time and place.

If I instead wanted someone wiser than me to come by and correct

Another reason (specifically for users like you) to add subsidy could be to create a battleground market where other large-balance traders are willing to put in the effort to research the topic and bet against you. Seeding a market with a few thousand early on could attract your favorite opponents and you might all start building big balances when you otherwise wouldn't. Boosting alone might not be able to get the market to that point.

"The kinds of people who will notice a big subsidy are the ones I want to bet with or against"

@chrisjbillington So is there a fee right now? (I thought not)

@Irigi There's currently a 25% tax on subsidies. For feed promo [1], if you bid Ṁ10 per click, I think the user who clicks only gets Ṁ3, so that's a 70% tax I suppose. I might be wrong about how that works.

[1] previously called "boosts", which is what we're calling it upthread, though now the term "boost" is used in the UI to refer to both subsidies and feed promo.

@chrisjbillington Interesting, thank you! They write 25% in GUI, but increasing by 100 actually costs 134, so it is more like 33%

And the boosts! I thought to pay M3 for a click is too much, but it actually costs M10 or more! I am surprised this is worth too anyone.

@Irigi Ah, that's a matter of what you use as the denominator. In this case it's being described like income tax: of the amount you pay (Ṁ133.3), 25% (Ṁ33.3) gets taxed, leaving the recipient with Ṁ100.

Sales tax indeed is usually described the other way around - of the amount the recipient receives (say, Ṁ100), you have to pay an additional 25%, so you have to pay Ṁ125 total (and if you have to pay Ṁ33.3 extra, we call that a 33% tax).

@SG Are there any statistics on how is mana created and destroyed and how much each channel contributes now? (Including dead accounts, where the mana also remains frozen, I guess).

I'm planning to liquidate + donate the money in my account over the next 2 months, and recommend everyone else do the same. Don't keep more than M10k net worth after January.

Besides this subsidy tax, they are also capping the donations to $10k USD monthly(for the entire community, not just individuals) starting January. And they've previously said they'll add a 30% donation tax(each 100 mana gets 70 cents of donations). So don't wait for it to happen and be surprised when you have your mana locked up in 1 year+ expiring markets whose payout has suddenly been devalued.

Do this even if they reply to this comment saying it doesn't look as bad as it sounds; and that they just now opened up their accounting books for the first time this year and noticed they have to do something to stay in business so aren't these changes fair?; and that I'm overreacting; and that they'll give more warning next time. Don't discuss or justify your decision: Just nod your head in silence, and continue any exit strategy planning to finish by January. And do it even if they try to backtrack on any of these.

I'm writing it here because this market has 93 active traders most of whom care about the value of their mana, because the devaluation is related to the subsidy tax, and there's no better announcement place for me to say this. (not everyone sees Discord, and many people here may not even realize these 3 things are happening).

@Mira Some valid points but I don't think "when you have your mana locked up in 1 year+ expiring markets whose payout has suddenly been devalued." is much of a worry. We all get most of our mana back in less than a month via loans, the vast majority is loaned back from now to the end of the year, and can donate the mana balance from those loans. Of course, Manifold could change those loan mechanics too (anyone have a market on that?)

@jack Sort of? Nothing specific.

Also, Manifold has very consistently stated that donations at 1:1 are not guaranteed and may be devalued in the future. This is such a small devaluation, much smaller than I was expecting in fact!

The hypothetical "they just now opened up their accounting books for the first time this year and noticed they have to do something to stay in business" is not the right way to look at it. Manifold could stay in business without donations at all. They almost did when Stripe was about to shut donations off.

@Mira I mean, you're welcome to donate as much mana as you'd like here: https://manifold.markets/charity

Now that we're instituting a $10k monthly cap (in 2024), we're scrapped the idea of adding a donation tax; it's no longer necessary.

Also, we've always maintained and even told users that changes to the charity program were likely. We also are providing almost 3 months advance notice to users—which is substantial (and more than most other companies would provide).

@Mira my use of Manifold isn't predicated on being able to donate the profits, or anything else about the actual value of mana. And as long as people value fake internet points, which they definitely do, prediction markets will still work, even if pegs to real money are devalued or removed entirely. So I'm pretty unconcerned. I don't know what proportion of others only value using Manifold because of the real money thing, but I'd guess it's lower than you seem to be assuming? It has basically never occured to me to care about this.

The amounts of money are so small! The largest all-time profit of one user only amounts to like US$12k or something. Most users with higher balances here are intelligent and skilled people who could make money at a far higher hourly rate (like, orders of magnitude higher) than whatever their effective hourly rate is betting on Manifold. It makes little sense to take mana's value as actual money seriously when relatively small profits are so time consuming to acquire.

@Mira https://manifold.markets/aashiq/will-mira-liquidate-positions

Will Mira liquidate positions?

50% chance. Mira says: I'm planning to liquidate + donate the money in my account over the next 2 months, and recommend everyone else do the same. Don't keep more than M10k net worth after January. https://manifold.markets/SG/should-manifold-charge-a-fee-on-mar#xEeD4FgxonrcGEDQKneD This market resolves based on my best judgement as to whether they have done this. [link preview]

@chrisjbillington Yeah, polls show about half of users think donations are important, but <10% think donations are critically important (main reason they care about Manifold).

https://manifold.markets/jack/poll-is-donating-mana-important-to

https://manifold.markets/SG/how-important-is-manifolds-charity

Poll: Is donating mana important to you personally?

Resolved 51%. Which of these best describes you personally? Donating mana is not important to me personally Donating mana is important to me personally, but it's not the main reason I care about Manifold. Being able to donate mana is the main reason I care about Manifold. Respond by liking the appropriate comment below. By choosing to respond, you agree to respond honestly. You are also encouraged to discuss your thoughts in the comments. This market resolves to the fraction of responses 2 and 3 out of the total, i.e. (#2 + #3) / (#1 + #2 + #3) For fine print, see https://manifold.markets/jack/standard-poll-rules Note: I am aware that selection bias is a major concern for a poll like this. I suspect if you polled random community members, you might get substantially different results.

@Mira This seems rational to me, it's what I would expect lots of users to do if they announced the complete end of the charity program. And a 10k cap is basically the same thing as an end to the program if you expect Manifold to become a major social media platform where 10k is chump change.

So either Manifold never becomes very successful or the charity program is effectively nothing relative to the increased size of manifold.

@Joshua They have the ability to increase the charity cap.

@Mira I think this is quite rational. I will also be making a sizeable donation before the end of the year and hope everyone else does the same. The reason I haven't donated very much is because I think my rate of return is too high to justify donating now vs later but given the donation cap, there is going to be a real need to get the donations done before.

The 10k cap is strange to me right now because Manifold was given money specifically to donate. It is somehow a for-profit startup but also getting free money for this program. It would make sense to me if they instituted a cap after the initial grant ran out but it seems to me that they are going to use grants for general operating expenses (please correct me if I am wrong).

@MarcusAbramovitch

it seems to me that they are going to use grants for general operating expenses (please correct me if I am wrong).

In the sense that money is fungible, and if the grant lasts longer they won't have to donate out of their operating budget -> more money for other stuff? Or do you think they will literally spend the grant money sponsoring horse racing or whatever? I'd bet against that.

In the long run I'd much prefer a 30% donation tax to the monthly cap.

@jskf Im saying that Manifold received 500k from the FTF Future Fund, 1.6M from SFF, 200k from LTFF etc.

I was under the assumption this was regranting money for people's mana to donate. It seems now that they treat that as money for the company (basically an investment in Manifold without equity)

Right now the cap is irrelevant; much less than $10k gets donated monthly. It seems people are only concerned by the possibility that the cap starts getting consistently hit in the future and Manifold chooses not to increase it; not by any negative effects the cap will have right away. But Manifold has stated that this is purely an measure rather than a way to limit donations overall, which makes it seem likely that they'd increase it if monthly donations started consistently nearing $10k. Of course it would be nice to get confirmation of that, but I don't really see a reason to be upset here?

@IsaacKing want to bet that more than 50k will get donated in the next 2.5 months?

@MarcusAbramovitch I would imagine that Manifold have checked or will check with those donors that they are comfortable with the regrants being spaced out at some maximum rate. Especially since Manifund and Manifold may want to apply for other grants.

@MarcusAbramovitch Not particularly? Depends on the odds though. Unsure why you're offering.