Resolves YES if SA stops blogging this year, or moves to a (edit: substantially) different pseudonym, or a substantially differently themed blog under a different title. Resolves NO if, for instance, ACX is merely moved off substack, or is renamed but remains substantively the same.
Since I don't feel like fleshing out super precise terms, I will not be betting in this market.
Updated March 19: If he's moving to a different pseudonym, it has to be substantially different. The spirit is "is he trying to start a new online identity, not easily connected to the old one". If it's "Scott Siskind", or "Scott Alexandrios", that won't count.
This whole question is about "is the new blog intended to be contiuous with the old one"? If SA says "I shut down ACX", that's nearly irrefutable evidence in favor of YES. Ditto for "this is the continuation of ACX".
Related questions
๐ Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | แน16 | |
| 2 | แน11 | |
| 3 | แน7 | |
| 4 | แน6 | |
| 5 | แน5 |
@IsaacKing I think the spirit was clear enough that nobody was deceived. I've updated the resolution criteria.
... I think I wrote better questions back when I was willing to bet on my own markets.
@ScottLawrence Added further clarification.
And when I say "the spirit was clear enough..." I'm not critiquing your critique (which I appreciate)---just explaining why I feel no guilt in changing resolution criteria, more than two months after market creation, without consulting anyone.