Premise:
@Tumbles owes a lot of mana.
There has been talk of renegotiating this debt with his creditors, and/or more complicated financial arrangements.
How much is Tumbles' debt worth? (i.e. cents on the dollar, except, mana)
Resolution:
This is not straightforward to measure (and broadly this is an unserious market, so bet at your own risk).
This will be evaluated as of June 1st.
I will look for all transactions involving Tumbles' loans between market creation & June 1st.
This market resolves to the total (weighted) average value of the loans involved in those transactions
Loans repaid in full are worth 100%. Any loans that default are worth 0%.
Loan extensions don't count.
Generally, any transaction/negotiation where mana is exchanged between parties & it implies a value of the underlying loans will probably count.
I expect this may not be straightforward to calculate and thus the main rule here will be my good faith attempt to estimate the underlying value of the loans, as implied by what people are paying for them.
Example: if Tumbles defaults on a 100M loan, repays a 200M loan, and renegotiates a future 200M loan so that he only owes 100M, I'll count that as 3 transactions. This market would resolve to (0 + 200 + 100) / (100 + 200 + 200) = 60%.
Other examples:
Forgiven loans are a transaction that count as 0%.
It might depend on the exact details, but a "renegotiation" where a creditor agrees to extend the due date and accept only 50% of the previous value will likely be excluded—that doesn't meaningfully imply the value of the loan, it's closer to an extension (they might accept that promise over default even if they think the loan is worth 1%).
Generally, any transaction where mana is exchanged will be prioritized (plus loan forgiveness + loan default, all of which concretely imply a loan value).
TRANSACTIONS I'M AWARE OF CURRENTLY (this is not a binding/comprehensive list):
Update 2025-05-01 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): * The creator has indicated that tracking the original amounts owed for Tumbles' debts is proving difficult.
Due to this difficulty, there is a reasonable chance the market may resolve N/A if the creator cannot find a sufficiently good log of the original debts to perform the calculation outlined in the description.
Update 2025-05-07 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): * The creator has updated the process for gathering transaction data:
They are unlikely to manually track down all Tumbles' debt transactions themselves due to increasing complexity.
Instead, they will rely on users to submit transactions they are aware of.
The creator will compile these submitted transactions and calculate the weighted average value as per the original description's methodology at the end of the month (for evaluation as of June 1st).
The creator noted that the market could resolve N/A if this method of relying on user submissions does not yield a sufficient basis for calculation. This potential for N/A resolution is related to the challenge of compiling comprehensive transaction data and is in addition to any N/A risks previously mentioned (e.g., difficulty in tracking original debt amounts).
Update 2025-05-07 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): If the calculated total (weighted) average value of Tumbles' loans (as per the methodology in the original description) exceeds 100%, the market will resolve to 100%.
1,000People are also trading
Meowdy! Looks like the Market's feeling a bit jittery with a 64.4% chance that Tumbles' debt value will tumble—purrhaps investors are sniffing out some shaky paws on those numbers! Given that probability, I’d say there’s a fair kitty-chance this binar-owl will fall into place. places 10 mana limit order on YES at 64.4% :3
Purchased at 98.3 cents on the dollar.
June 2nd 2025 - Ṁ15,000 @copiumarc
@Robincvgr that's a good way of describing it. Yea, it's entertaining for sure. I did not see it coming.
@Ziddletwix Serious question, how will you handle this if Tumbles debt value goes above 100%? It's extremely unlikely, but average Tumbles debt value inching above 100% in May is becoming a tail end possibility. Just resolve YES?
@Robincvgr it would resolve to 100%, that's the best available resolution option (since I can't make NO shares worth less than 0)
@Ziddletwix plus to add this is in part a subjective-ish resolution, in the sense that if someone is like trading back and forth tumbles debt at inflated values and those transactions don't mean anything real about the value of the debt, they'd just be excluded. the mean of the current transactions so far is <50% so it'd take some very very large over-pays to put this above 100%.
(and, if it wasn't clear, this is all about the value of the debt that tumbles owes, not the amount he was originally lent. so for the "double your mana" deal, selling that debt for 60% of what tumbles owes is still 60%, even if technically the lender made a profit)
@Ziddletwix cool thanks
if someone is like trading back and forth tumbles debt at inflated values and those transactions don't mean anything real about the value of the debt
yeah i figured. we just suspect that certain creditors might be in genuine good-faith negotiations with WTBLTPBAL YES whales to sell debt for >=100%, and if enough of crazy stuff surrounding that happens, it might be crazy for this market
@Robincvgr can you explain more the situation where the debt is worth more than 100%? I don't think the debt can ever be valued at more than 100% because if a WTBLTPBAL YES whale buys debt for more than 100%, somebody can just force pay it off afterwards for 100% (no different than if the YES whale owns it or not)
somebody can just force pay it off afterwards for 100% (no different than if the YES whale owns it or not)
For what reason would they do this? Merely paying off one item of debt does not really help any particular individual prima facie.
I was just thinking if the issue was the YES whale owning the debt to prevent Jumbles. I guess can you explain the situation where the debt could be valued at more than 100%? If it would benefit NO or YES, to purchase the debt at a value more than 100%, the other side could just eliminate it by paying it off for 100% (obviously that does assume coordination). Would it be for paying the loses if the creditor is already a NO holder?
@StopPunting if a NO holder paid off a YES holder's debt, the YES holder could use that payment to go acquire more debt. The NO holder would be back in the same spot again but with a big sunk cost. They'd have to do it in coordination with the execution of TARP (or some other bailout) to avoid this.
JUMBLES is attempting to track debt purchases since the announcement of TARP: https://manifold.markets/news/jumbles
Purchases tracked so far:
6 May 2025, @copiumarc sent @nikki Ṁ1,110 for Ṁ2,000 debt
6 May 2025, @HillaryClinton sent @AleaNiled Ṁ1,069 for Ṁ2,000 debt
7 May 2025, @TheWabiSabi sent @zsig Ṁ8,000 for Ṁ10,000 debt
7 May 2025, @TheWabiSabi sent @Odoacre Ṁ8,000 for Ṁ16,000 debt
7 May 2025, @InfamousMan sent @ahalekelly Ṁ7,400 for Ṁ20,000 debt
In addition, JUMBLES made this purchase before the TARP announcement:
6 May 2025, @cthor sent @TheWabiSabi Ṁ51,500 for Ṁ169,000 debt
@cthor thank you for these updates! this has gotten much messier since i started the market so to be blunt i am unlikely to manually try and track down every transaction myself (this would be nearly impossible from tumbles' balance log) and could have to N/A but if people want to submit transactions they are aware of in this market (or i can check the jumbles dashboard) i will happily add them to a spreadsheet and calculate the avg value at the end of the month
@Ziddletwix JUMBLES will be tracking all purchases going forward to the best of our ability, so checking the dashboard for further updates should be sufficient
@Robincvgr i updated the post with a spreadsheet showing some of the transactions i'm aware of. that being said, tumbles is paying lots of people back in different amounts and it's already getting quite hard to track down the original amounts owed in each case so there is a reasonable chance i just give up on this project and N/A the market unless i can find a good log of what the original debts were
@bens updated, plus glancing at the changelog it seems like @Conflux and @Robincvgr were paid at 100%.
but again this might escalate and while it's easier to track occasional debt purchases, if @Tumbles is repaying everyone different amounts without a clear log i may give up on tracking it
@Ziddletwix I support a good faith estimation attempt to resolve this market, even if there are inaccuracies!