This market resolves YES if it becomes public knowledge that at least 3 accounts were collaborating to create low-quality markets, and then always bet on the markets of the other 2 (in order to collect those sweet M$10 rewards). The 3 accounts don't need to be controlled by distinct meatbags. It is necessary that the markets be markedly lower quality than normal. In other words, a group of friends who just enjoy betting on each others' markets for fun do not count.
Note that this scheme is profitable with only 2 accounts, but this market won't resolve YES unless there are 3 or more consistently taking part.
Otherwise, this market resolves NO at the end of the year.
If Manifold modifies the M$10 reward to be immune to this scheme, I'll wait until the end of the year to resolve NO, just in case it gets changed back.
For some context, see the discussion on https://manifold.markets/Boklam/if-i-find-some-unfair-ie-unintended.
(As the resolution is somewhat subjective, I will not be betting in this market.)
Related questions
🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ97 | |
| 2 | Ṁ51 | |
| 3 | Ṁ19 | |
| 4 | Ṁ8 | |
| 5 | Ṁ1 |
Alright, I trolled through the API looking for pairs of users who bet on each others' markets. To narrow the search pool, I assumed that there would be at least 6 markets created by each user. I investigated each candidate pair by hand, and I can find no suspicious behavior.
Strictly speaking, it's still possible that there's a cabal that I just missed, or that a cabal was found by the admins and deleted (and therefore isn't showing up through the API). Nevertheless, in the absence of any hard evidence, I'm going to resolve this NO.
A quick update @IsaacKing and @Ethan --- this market will resolve soon, I promise. I've gotta do a search through the API for evidence of a betting cabal, and should I fail to find one, I'll resolve NO. Expect resolution by Jan 14, when I actually get around to doing things.
@Yev Unless the M$10 rewards are all somehow burned (for which there's no facility right now), I'm going to assume that collecting those rewards was part of the motivation, and resolve YES.
That's true even if the people responsible are primarily doing it for a different reason. (Like, because they have a large position on a meta-market about betting patterns.)
@ScottLawrence In that case please resolve YES :)
https://manifold.markets/CalebMoore/did-the-user-pepe-sixtyninthcause-e
@TaseXaviera @AltansarnaiHavard @AnthonyLawson @Pepe2 @Pepe
As for where the markets are, that's a very good question. They seem to be gone?...
@Pepe do you know what happened to those markets?
@Yev The central thing I want confirmation of is that there were 3 accounts creating markets and all betting on each others' markets. It needs to be a complete graph to satisfy the conditions of this market.
@ScottLawrence I think that was the case, but it's hard to prove now that the markets seem to have been deleted. Would you trust @Pepe's word on this?
@Yev If someone not invested in the market can provide details and plausible insider knowledge, then that'll let this resolve YES.
Please give me some evidence! As-is, resolving this market is going to be very tricky. Note that I'm not very happy with resolving N/A due to "lack of evidence", because, well... it's tricky to prove a negative, and if the possible resolutions were YES and N/A, that would bias the market.
@ScottLawrence There's also been a bunch of people banned for fraud involving multiple accounts: https://manifold.markets/post/ban-log.
@SirSalty Did any of those people farm trader bonuses (as opposed to sign-up bonuses)?
@Yev Okay then, after this market closes I can go try and search for evidence of a betting cabal in those histories. If I can't find any, and you can't get someone with direct knowledge to "testify", I'm going to have to resolve NO, I think.
