This poll is about /Yev/i-want-to-invest-m1000-for-1-week-h. Cosmo has agreed to send me M$1010. He has sent me a manalink for M$1, which I collected, and another manalink M$1009, which I did not.
Cos made a very convincing argument that manalinks are like cheques, and a cheque is considered "paid" when it is delivered to the recipient, regardless of whether the recipient has cashed it. Therefore Cosmo has paid me M$1010.
However previously Olivia has said that her for the purposes of her markets, only cashed manalinks count. Since my market is based on hers, this should also apply to my market. Therefore Cosmo has paid me M$1.
This market resolves to the fraction of people who voted M$1010 in the poll.
1,000
3.00(I have not followed this drama so maybe y'all are five layers of abstraction ahead of me but...)
This seems to be a question about the definition of the word "repay": Has a repayment occurred if Cosmo sent Yev the manalink, but Yev did not take it? Cosmo has argued that the most natural answer is "yes"; for the moment, let's take that for granted.
On the other hand, Yev's market description says: "This market works like..." with a link to a market of Olivia's. Olivia writes something in a comment to that market (apparently written before Yev's market was created) that implies (but does not quite state outright) that "repay" means something different, and the answer to this question is "no".
So my question is: when you link to a market and say your market "works like" it, does that automatically incorporate the linked market's resolution criteria -- even those explained in the comments, and even those implied but not stated in the comments?
@Boklam (I'm buying NO here for hedging / arbitrage purposes; please don't take this as indicating any opinion on my part.)
I think it could make sense to treat the "amount paid" as 1 if the lender decided to accept less payment than originally planned, i.e. forgive the loan despite being offered full payment. In such case, there is no debt remaining and no plans for the lender to accept the payment in the future.
On the other hand, if the lender planned to cash the manalink after resolution, and we're just debating about the timing of when it was paid, I think I'd favor 1010 being the more sensible resolution.
So... now Yev gets to decide if it's more profitable to get 1000 payment or to do some more market manipulation 🙂
@jack as you said yourself,
"at the end" is the headline summary, but the market description clarifies it as "Then a week later market will resolve according to how much mana the first borrower repayed me." This is perfectly reasonable, and I think the correct resolution is how much was paid within that 1 week.
@Yev Yes, but cos sent the manalink before the deadline, and I think there's a fair argument to be made that time of sending should count, not time of accepting.
