Sorry, should have done this a bit earlier.

I don't think the market price should ever be an input to resolution criteria btw. This is a bit of a silly example, but in general I think it's really bad.

@jacksonpolack I strongly agree. It completely derails truth-seeking. But one perspective is that I think a ton of Manifold markets end up doing this implicitly, whether due to bias, social forces, or the creator rationally updating based on market opinion; I happen to think a lot of it is bias, but I want to be charitable. Creators even often allude to it but don't specifically say it is a reason for resolution. So if it's going to happen, at least @ZviMowshowitz explicitly says this is the case, which will hopefully spur policies and clearer norms against it.

@Jacy To be clear: This was 100% resolving NO regardless of price, the question was only when to do that.

@ZviMowshowitz the use of market price in timing of resolution still creates the concerning incentives, but yeah, I'd agree there's not a substantial issue with this market considered in isolation.

4% is very close to the interest rate. If this does not at least touch higher soon I am going to resolve this to NO.

There are certain specific people in this market betting NO that cause this to be more likely by betting NO and sharing this market with their friends. It would be more entertaining for other certain people watching for this to resolve YES.

If not for those people, this would be near 0%, but you guys are really setting yourselves up to be pranked.

@Mira I don't understand this comment. Does this have something to do with the simulation hypothesis?

@jacksonpolack limit order

A key difference between Sam and Roon is that Sam is not committed to the bit:

@Joshua A shame. You have to commit to the bit! Everyone knows this.

good point!

Point of clarification: While this is trading substantially above KL-99 (e.g. 'the interest rate') I am not going to be in a particular hurry to resolve it, but if is trading at or below that number and looks to be staying there then I will consider the evidence that has been presented here and elsewhere and decide whether to resolve.

I know who Roon is, and he's not Sam.

@ArthurB do you also know who Sam is? I don't think you can really draw any conclusions if you don't.

@jskf Yes, Sam is Sam Altman.
I won't dox Roon, but he's been on a podcast and is clearly not Sam
https://podcastaddict.com/eigenrobot/episode/135455644

all I'm saying is, look at my all-time profit, look at the all-time profit of no holders...

@jacksonpolack I do applaud you for finally betting on a thing being real.

N/A - the empty individualist response: no one is Sam Altman, and no one is Roon.

Well, this question got more interesting...

@ZviMowshowitz what the hell happened

@VAPOR Someone decided to take a large YES position. I see no news either way.

I've met Roon. He's not Sama.

@jonsimon how sure are you the guy you met was the real roon

@ShakedKoplewitz We DM'ed on twitter