Resolves to YES if we have conclusive evidence that Sam Altman is Roon.
Resolves to NO if we have conclusive evidence that Sam Altman is NOT Roon.
Resolves N/A if we reach the deadline and still have no idea.
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ2,709 | |
| 2 | Ṁ1,169 | |
| 3 | Ṁ828 | |
| 4 | Ṁ534 | |
| 5 | Ṁ498 |
People are also trading
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.
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?
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.
@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