Will MM make it better for market creators, by May 1st 2022.
18
179
Ṁ103
resolved May 3
Resolved
YES
The problem is one of endorphins. Trading, pushing and pulling money into markets for a fast buck (or lost buck) is fun, immediate and let's say zero-sum ish. OTOH creating a market is long term, boring in the sense it locks up your ANTE for ages, and extra boring if the market is meaningful and not some short term whalebait crap. In addition when you create a market, it is your opinion vs. every shark out their who can see a flaw in your logic. On average creating a market means you will get eating by sharks. It would be good in my opinion to make it better for market makers, so we get more markets created. And by extension, more interesting markets in the mix. Some ideas: 1. Run the pool as a classic pool as a fundraiser. So as a creator I put in $10, and say it starts once the pot reaches a threshold say $200. During phase 1, people bet blind YES/NO. Once $200 is reached, the probability is calculated based on the $190 of additional bets, and then it is a $200 pool with that prob from the start. If it never reaches $200, run it as a classic PM pool. The reason this is good because it allow someone with say $500 and a lot of good ideas to create 50 markets, and then if one catches on, the startup phase avoids the problem with $10 pools at the moment that you can only bet $1 at a time without skewing. The blind portion takes away the unfair advantage sharks have at the beginning. It will put off the "professionals" and attract people who are interested in the outcome. IMO. 2. Better rewards for market makers - I think 1% of every transaction (buys, selling shares and then the payout) would be good - and then, like a tip jar, pool this money across the platform and share it across all markets that are 'interesting' as defined by having 5 unique bettors. This rewards small niche market makers, and avoids people feeling like they want to create the "Will this reach $10000 this week" kind of crap. 3. Some kind of loan system for creating markets so capital is not tied up. E.g. $500 loans per player total for market creation. Resolves YES if anything is done specifically to address the problem of incentives to create markets Mar 9, 9:51am: Just a thought, something that proves this is a problem is how https://manifold.markets/MetaculusBot works. It seems to be an admin account that prints money to create new markets. You wouldn't need to print (or print as much), if it was better for market makers :-) Close date updated to 2022-04-24 11:59 pm May 4, 7:34am: Yes because https://github.com/manifoldmarkets/manifold/pull/107
Get Ṁ200 play money

Related questions

🏅 Top traders

#NameTotal profit
1Ṁ42
2Ṁ36
3Ṁ31
4Ṁ27
5Ṁ24
9 Comments
16 Holders
30 Trades
Sort by:
bought Ṁ1 of NO
Minimum ante was M$10 at market start.
bought Ṁ10 of YES
We're working on giving everyone one subsidized market per day and lowered the ante to $50
bought Ṁ15 of NO
While the new simplified experience could be better because of more traffic and more bets, I don't expect that to pay off by May 1st.
bought Ṁ100 of NO
The trend is moving in the opposite direction, we now have $100 fixed price market creation.
sold Ṁ19 of YES
The market on eliminating all fees suggests a move in the opposite direction.
bought Ṁ5 of NO
Gurkenglas' idea of making faster bets be taxed more (I am paraphrasing) so that if people are reacting to 'public' info they don't get as a good a deal as personal insight would help. If that happened I would resolve YES, because it makes it better for a market maker as they don't get stumped by real life events creating sudden swings in expected outcomes that the AMM has to swallow at cheap prices.
bought Ṁ1 of NO
Personally I already find market-creating to be fun, but I may be in the minority. One thing I'd be a little worried about is that if the fee that market creators get is made too high or the entry costs too low (such as by offering free loans to make any number of markets), people may start spamming the site with low-quality markets. (A better filtration/tagging system would probably prevent this from becoming a serious problem.) Note that trader already have to lose 5% of their profits to fees, and the higher than gets, the less incentive there is for people to participate and correct the market. (That's about half of PredictIt's fees, and people seem to think PredictIt is exorbitantly high.) Anecdotally, the current ecosystem seems to have plenty of markets; if I'm not mistaken we have more markets than we have active users. So I feel like additional incentives for market creation may become necessary at some point in the future, but right now it seems like it's solving a problem that doesn't exist yet.
bought Ṁ20 of YES
Beyond the excellent ideas in the OP, we've also been considering a few visual changes to reward market-making: - Making the creator fee more explicit throughout our site - Tracking and showing total money a creator has adjudicated. This could be in the form of a visual badge, so new users know which creators to trust
bought Ṁ2 of YES
why does it appear to end in 6 days lol

Related questions