Resolved to N/A, as this market was closed, but BaKa's market was not resolved.

🤣

It will resolve NA

The BaKa's market https://manifold.markets/BaKa/will-microsoft-go-bankrupt-in-2-wee is closed (it is not resolved yet).

I want to remind the traders of this market what will happen with this market pretty soon if there is no resolution by BaKa for his market.

> This market resolves N/A if the market https://manifold.markets/BaKa/will-microsoft-go-bankrupt-in-2-wee is not resolved at the moment this market closes (around 2 days after BaKa's market closes)

(this is the original logic for this market, but I would like to notify about it, so there is no surprise)

For those who don't know the context here, the market creator there purchased a whole bunch of Yes shares and wrote a comment saying that they thought it would go bankrupt. The running hypothesis is that they intend to misresolve that market and pocket the ill-gotten gains.

That market creator is a new account whose handle ("BaKa" = "baka" = Japanese for "idiot") implies that it's probably a troll who'd happily do this to sow chaos.

Will you allow BaKa to trade in this market? Or will you resolve N/A if that happens?

@JimHays Hmm. I din't thought about it at all. Thank you.

Actually I'm don't see the perfect way how to handle it now. I should have written this case in the market descriptoin and stated beforehand how I would handle this.

I'm against changing the market after there are already several traders. I think that if I add the rule "I will close this market as N/A if BaKa is trading here" this will make some existing traders unhappy. I think that will not consider BaKa's bet here as a special case, and just use the existing rules — so I will allow BaKa trade here as an ordinary trader.

@bessarabov In that case, it seems like this market could provide significant extra funds to BaKa if they insider trade here. The funds won’t even be at risk based on Manifold overturning the original market, since that wouldn’t affect the resolution of this market. I think I’ll skip on participating

@JimHays This is very good point, thank you.

I think that I messed up with creating the logic for this market, but I think that leaving it as it is is better than changing the rules in the middle of trading.

Why is there so little arbitrage between those two markets? Basically, these are two markets that resolve to the same outcome, but one is at 3 % and one is at 48%. One could make risk-free profit by bringing them closer together. (I did this myself, bot only for ~Ṁ100.)

@howtodowtle Because this one resolves to the initial resolution of the other one, and I expect the other one is very likely to be corrected if it is misresolved initially. So the final resolutions can be different.

Yes, because I have faith in humanity ❤️

@42irrationalist Shouldn't the bet be "NO" if there is a faith in humanity?

@bessarabov I had the same thought, but maybe they're an AI doomer and meant "I have faith that humanity will unite against Microsoft for introducing their dangerous Bing AI"

@bessarabov You are right! Changed to "NO". For whatever reason I read it as "resolved correctly".

❤️ Thank you for pointing out, I have even more faith in humanity now! ❤️