Resolves according to https://manifold.markets/stats
An engaged user is a user who has traded in, commented on, or created a question on at least 2 out of 7 days in each of the past 3 weeks.
Addendum Sep 13th:
Market resolution will not respect manipulation attempts that violate Manifold's
community guidelines - this means use of bugs, an army of alts, botting, etc. Regular
collusion and other kinds of manipulation that don't violate the community guidelines are
fine.
In the event that community-guidelines-violating manipulation occurs, I will attempt to
correct for it and be transparent about how I have done so.
π Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | αΉ8,693 | |
| 2 | αΉ5,306 | |
| 3 | αΉ122 | |
| 4 | αΉ106 | |
| 5 | αΉ82 |
I think this market is yet another example that the default should be that creators can't bet in their own markets. There is always going to be plausible deniability if the market is being interpreted in the creator's favor but it leaves a sour taste in people's mouths. The simple thing to do is to make it easy to hand off market creation.
@MarcusAbramovitch For what it's worth, and for those with a sour taste in their mouths, I think the plausible deniability is very strong in this case. It might not look like it, but the way I handled this was very much against my interests.
@PC and I knew to expect a drop of 39 in the engagement figures yesterday, due to the Ukrainian mana farming accounts dropping out of the numbers (they ceased farming 5 days prior). And we are calculating live intra-day numbers and when the numbers changed, we knew this market was with very high probability resolving in our favour today regardless. The only reason the price wasn't even higher was because @PC and I knew people would keep betting NO and wanted to spread out our bets so that we didn't run out of balance prior to resolution, to get a better average price.
(The unconvincing act about bribery and other subterfuge was ineffective FUD, if it wasn't clear at the time)
For me the most profitable way to handle things would have been to leave the market open and declare I would apply an offset or something for continuity with the previous numbers. Then I could have kept trading and extracted more mana from NO betters for the remainder of the day.
More relevant to my interests, by accepting the new numbers, I've also jeopardised my 88k stake betting that engagement won't drop below 1150, which will now be a close call. I really really didn't want the numbers to take a -15 hit for that one, after the farmers ceasing already dropped it 39 compared to the trend I was betting based on earlier in the month.
Not implying you need convincing @MarcusAbramovitch, but I thought it would be good for people to know - there was next to no chance this market was resolving any other way, and I've made my chances elsewhere worse, so I hope this gives me some cred.
@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! Thatβs the main issue I see
@chrisjbillington Not really. Just gotta go fast
Weβre 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 or create an unlisted market, dump your balance it in, then resolve NA
@chrisjbillington As far as I can tell, Iβve 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
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).