🏅 Top traders

It has been only nearly five months, this AI statement feels so old and useless. In the same time, 2030 AI doom market went from 20% to 5%, still 5% to much.

I remember there being some sort of postmortem blog post on this market. Does anyone have a link?

@JonasVollmer It's probably this one: https://news.manifold.markets/p/manifold-predicted-the-ai-extinction

A Manifold Market "Leaked" the AI Extinction Statement and CAIS Wanted it Deleted

An in-depth dive into the behind the scenes of the AI statement market

@Jonagold Thank you!

Someone should make a video essay

"If you go into an adversarial environment with the prior that it's inductive, you are the free energy." - John David Pressman

@rockenots Yup. that was so me, here I thought every other trade except me was pure math, I sure made a mistake not ever stopping to model an agent on the other end. I'm such a fool! I'm glad people like you are here to tell me where I went wrong :)

Since there's been confusion behind relisting of this market, I can share my reasoning for what happened.

No quinesweeper did not rug-pull for leagues. Instead we told them we wanted to know if they could re-list it. We want to highlight the newsworthy AI letter and this market was a perfect fit. It was expedient to shill such trading. We forgot about leagues but James has now removed this market from leagues calculation. It seems this has gotten many traders who were right all along.

We just want to write about some market dynamics, guys.

@Sinclair if that's the case, shouldn't the exact same thing happen to this market

https://manifold.markets/AlexbGoode/will-the-will-there-be-another-lett?r=TWFyY3VzQWJyYW1vdml0Y2g

@MarcusAbramovitch that market was listed from the start. In fact, it was created because this one was unlisted, so that people who care about leagues bet there

@TheWiggleMan this is a completely arbitraged market.

I didn't bet in either market

@MarcusAbramovitch I'm happy we come to agreement that the arbitrage market existed because people wanted this one to be listed.

@TheWiggleMan imo, this is a problem that manifold should solve. The site gets less efficient when you have duplicate markets.

Sometimes, questions become equivalent. That's ok. But making a market that exactly parallels another just sucks liquidity from the site and makes arbitrage opportunity.

In this case, due to arb bots, the markets are the exact same. The only question is how much arbitrageurs suck out of the market.

Since this market is the exact same, whatever manifold decides to do to this market, it should do to the other. Fwiw, I think that both markets should just count normally. But I feel even more strongly that both should have the same outcome.

@MarcusAbramovitch this is a general suggestion to manifold to try and prevent pure duplicates. It causes mana inflation, extra "work" for traders to correct mispricings, etc.

@MarcusAbramovitch

In line with what you’re saying, removing the ability for a maker to dictate what is/isn’t included in leagues profits would reduce duplicate markets. They weren’t seen as duplicates to traders because impacts were different even though the questions were the same.

To be clear, my preference would be, in order

-Both markets count towards leagues

• Neither count

• Just one counts

@MarcusAbramovitch in standup yesterday we were thinking we maybe ought to code a distinction between "private market that the author wants to only share with the link" and "markets manifold doesn't want in feed for moderation reasons". The former maybe can count towards leagues, or it doesn't but we don't let users change it, or ... something idk. The latter should not count towards leagues ever, and all "moderation-demphasized" markets on the same question should be judged the same.

But in this particular case, people traded with a certain expectation that it would count towards league profits in the other market but not this one. The subject itself isn't against the guidelines, it's just that quinesweeper decided they wanted it to be private, for most of the month.

I do think this current situation is awkward and reveals a bad design.

@Sinclair I agree with the first paragraph and the third.

"People traded with a certain expectation that it would count towards league profits in the other market but not this one."

I strongly disagree with this. I think this is a relic that the markets can be thought of as different. I don't think they can be and I think allowing people to think that will cause way more problems.
1. If people actually did think that, they are... just wrong. The real way to think about the markets is that someone gamed Manifold's system to get free extra liquidity into the market + a job for arbitrageurs to keep the markets in line. Maybe some people really did believe that the markets were different and thus were willing to sacrifice profits (allowing arbitrageurs to get it) in order to only have their trades count (or not count) for leagues? This seems like a very weak argument to me.
2. I agree with @Gen, don't allow people to decide what the profits of a market do and don't count for. Also, maybe don't allow people to switch the market part way through. The market getting big and having more shares exist doesn't mean the market should get delisted. This was a real market, on a real event. Traders decided to trade a lot on it. It wasn't a meme or non-predictive market. Unlisting it seems weird
3. I think this market actually does set a strong precedent. I'm a bit worried about that. Trying to appease people on this market but not considering "moral hazard". At the end of the day, people's placement in leagues should get sorted in a couple months, regardless of how this one goes.
4. I think it's just very fair to say "quinesweeper originally had this market as listed, for profit for the leagues", they changed it later but that doesn't negate the initial intent. They shouldn't have been able to change it and from now on we won't let creators change it, by themselves, after market has already been created (they can N/A and re-create the market with the new changes). It obviously makes no sense to have some profits of a market count for some people but not for others (depending on time of bets).

I want to clarify that I really think the decision has to be the same for both markets. I don't care too much which way it goes (still prefer they count towards league profits).

Just to chime in on one specific point: I don't think anybody is saying this market shouldn't count because it was different. I think in an ideal world, this market should have counted towards league profits the entire time. The sole motivation for not counting it is that once it stopped counting, it becomes awkward to make it count again later. It's also awkward that the rules weren't clear up front. It's not anything about the activity on the market other than the fact that it became unlisted and therefore stopped counting.

This is why the two markets are different - the other listed duplicate market always counted, so there's no problem with continuing to count it.

For reference, I don't think it's clearly better to count it or not to count it - both are awkward and I don't know which is the less bad option.

@jack like Jack I am moderating my opinion and now agree that both options are awkward. If I was running Manifold I would have let all the currently listed markets count due to:

• Less dev effort

• More exciting results

• Copenhagen theory of ethics (doing nothing is less likely to be seen as intervening). Too late this time.

Looking forward to clearer rules for next season, whenever it starts.

@jack I definitely don't say it enough but I do empathize with Manifold. Everyone is profit motivated in their thinking (even if unconsciously) and there is never an answer that pleases everyone.
I generally consider it okay to just assert my opinion (in relevant places) on a matter. I never make ultimatums that it be followed.
I'm also way more likely to take a strong opinion that can change than one where I have a moderated opinion.

@MarcusAbramovitch

Maybe some people really did believe that the markets were different and thus were willing to sacrifice profits (allowing arbitrageurs to get it) in order to only have their trades count (or not count) for leagues?

The markets were clearly different. My motivation for participating in manifold is currently mostly league placements.

I was annoyed that the profits I made in this market stopped counting and therefore created the arbitrage market. Both markets were different in the utility they provided to me and I was willing to give up (meaningless, because not counting) profit to trade on the listed market.

My trading strategies in both markets were very different. Since many people decided to trade on the public market it seems like they also saw some utility in it being listed.

I think retroactively changing how markets count towards leagues is bad and the decision taken now was the correct one. Please don't change the way the markets are counted in leagues after their resolution.

I agree that in the future market creators should not be able to change the influence of a market on leagues after their creation.

@AlexbGoode yea, I understand this perspective and agree with it. I think Manifold should instantiate a precedent that you can't, as the market creator, turn a market from listed to unlisted after creation (you can N/A and make a new one but even that should be discouraged).

I understand your frustration but I do feel like the 2nd market was made "wrongly". Like, you shouldn't have made it. We shouldn't have two markets always, one for leagues and one not for leagues.

I'm not saying you did anything wrong. I do maintain that the proper resolution is just to have both markets count for leagues. That seems like the cleanest resolution.

@AlexbGoode to clarify, I get why you did what you did and I definitely would not have Manifold punish you for it. It was going to take time to get clarification and you did a thing you thought would allow you to accomplish your goals which you should not have had to do. There's no perfect resolution to this all. I think the best one is "both markets count for leagues".

Again, I say this as someone who has no profit interest in this market.

I think another thing to note is that there is no room for memes in markets. If your thought process involves "people are just doing this for the meme" then I would suggest really really questioning that assumption. Not questioning it leaves you open for exploitation as the opposing party can very easily use memes to introduce noise into your observations.

But this might be somewhat of a hot take. I'm open to hearing what you all think.

@mkualquiera People should definitely not blindly assume that a market filled with memes means it's just memes. But there definitely are traders who are known to make meme trades on Manifold, and there are meme trades on the stock markets, and in both cases there is money to be made correcting them - it all comes down to accurately predicting whether it's mispriced or not.

@jack idk. I personally expect memes to very often be backed by some hidden underlying incentive, particularly if there are big stakes at play.

@mkualquiera maybe the real treasure was the memes we made along the way

@mkualquiera

> some hidden underlying incentive
yeah, it's called social status