🏅 Top traders

1167, resolves YES.

Would have been 1181 if not for the changes implemented today.

I wonder if people will pay me more for intel in the future 😉

so is no on autolose cuz of sept 21?

@higherLEVELING No - resolution won't recognise retroactively-changed numbers. But numbers published from now on, using Manifold's new calculation, do count.

A good point I think by @Willi is that even if you accept that the algorithm changing is just bad luck, using retroactively-changed numbers is a bit on the nose.

GDP markets that don't specify they factor in revisions would probably be assumed not to, and I think this is a fair default.

I plan to reopen the markets at 05:30 UTC ( a little over half an hour from the time of comment) and have them resolve based on the new numbers henceforth, but disregarding retroactive changes to numbers published for previous days.

I don't think there is a good way to randomise reopening in a way that doesn't just give me an advantage trading (or having to commit to not trading for some arbitrary period of time, also not ideal) so have opted for a public fixed time.

@chrisjbillington Would be nice if we could edit limit orders while closed! That’s the main issue I see

@Gen Wait so are you resolving this YES?

@Gen Ah :(. Any ideas?

@chrisjbillington Not really. Just gotta go fast

We’re lucky you closed the markets at all, at least that gives a bit of prep time

@PC I'm reopening and will resolve YES if future numbers are below 1200, or NO at the end of the month.

@Gen managram me your balance so the limit orders bounce. I'll send it back I promise.

Anyone else wanna managram your balance to me or someone you trust, pinky swear you get it back as soon as you cancel your limit orders or they get cancelled.

@chrisjbillington oh smart

@chrisjbillington or create an unlisted market, dump your balance it in, then resolve NA

@chrisjbillington As far as I can tell, I’ve successfully closed my limit orders

(Unless the UI is lying to me)

On mobile, go to closed markets, tap to see limits, tap cancel

@chrisjbillington understood. I'm not stoked, but I also somewhat agree with the conclusion and am mostly frustrated at how the situation blindsided (all of) us. it means a lot that you took time to lock things down and reassess openly

Everyone who traded No in the last week gets to mysteriously and forlornly allude to "being rugpulled by the people who make the rules" before taking a hit of their vape

@DavePanfilo What an unbelievably cringe way to end an otherwise exciting market

Leaving this here

I'm away for maybe ~1h and will likely resolve this YES and generate a random reopening time for other markets when I get back, unless I am convinced otherwise.

Edit: this didn't happen, see comments above. I decided to reopen and not count retroactively-changed numbers, but count future numbers as published.

@chrisjbillington I don't think you have to worry about the random reopening. Whenever you open is random to us (just not to you).

Bet here on a market with an offset of 15 applied, which was the difference that the code change made to the latest number (Sep 25th, 1216 → 1201):

Cripes, how should I resolve this one, though?

Closed so no trading. Discussion there.

@chrisjbillington I mean Sep 21 wasn't an option, so that still stands

@PC Aha lol. Great! I can reopen this one.

@Shump how exactly could I use fairlyRandom to randomise reopening? I generate bools with some probability at regular intervals and reopen when it says True?

Edit: actually I won't reopen it quite yet, since trading will still be influenced by what it looks like I'm going to do. I shouldn't reopen until that's final, though I've indicated which way I'm thinking unless convinced otherwise.

@chrisjbillington you use the bot to generate an int, not a bool. Then just open it after that many hours or whatever. No option to generate a real number, sadly. Syntax is @ fairlyrandom max

@Shump Then everyone will know in advance, no? Is that of benefit to just saying I'll reopen in X hours where I chose X?