Five distinct markets (different questions) by five different people must be created in order to count. If this is not done by close, this market resolves NO.
🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ76 | |
| 2 | Ṁ45 | |
| 3 | Ṁ22 | |
| 4 | Ṁ12 | |
| 5 | Ṁ11 |
@ScottLawrence Inevitable follow-up: https://manifold.markets/ScottLawrence/will-at-least-10-people-create-meta
@JimHays No, you are not. I did not notice, and effed up.
There's actually no way to fix this. The resolution criteria clearly state that if it hasn't happened by close, the market resolves NO. So it's not really fair to re-open and wait for another market. It's also not fair to resolve it NO, because then all the YES betters lose money just because I'm illiterate.
@MarkIngraham @Tux @DanMan314 I offer you each M$25---more than anyone's expected NO payout. Message me on discord and I'll send a manalink.
Also, because it's too funny not to do: https://manifold.markets/ScottLawrence/what-fraction-of-eligible-people-wi
@ScottLawrence It doesn’t say they had to be posted in the comments, so it’s possible another was created but not yet posted
@JimHays That's what I thought. So I searched through all YES betters and didn't see that any had created a meta-market.
@ScottLawrence As a general policy, I interpret "by close" as a shorthand for by the original close date. If that date is changed for whatever reason it doesn't change the resolution criteria. Otherwise you end up with dumb technicalities where the author can change the close date and manipulate the market, which is clearly undesirable. And in this case too, it is clearly not desirable for accidentally closing or resolving the market early to change the meaning of the question.
Under that interpretation, I think undoing market resolution isn't necessary. I made a meta-market, and so did @Conflux, and it's before the original close time, so the market resolution is now correct.
My M$25 manalink offer stands, though, just because I did make a mistake and it should be painful for me. And I'm still going to count this as a misresolution for my own purposes.
@ScottLawrence Yes, agreed. It was an incorrect and mistaken resolution at the time, but now YES is correct.