🏅 Top traders

hahaha

@citrinitas your random number is: 1195

Salt: fYJnkVPxU2CQUGIPWXwh, round: 2686171 (signature 9970992e0c6ac7ecb43e890f3468fb6c9b4ec586f3a936efc3addd88b26bb221bf655b2010e6ec5b76020358efbe78871470c78c465a3101bda7baed1dcc1081ba312d92b4712d6d0fcc90596d7561905887673e830ade78248bae06b6becdaa)

@FairlyRandom Chess goes on!

@FairlyRandom 32838

@citrinitas you asked for a random integer between 1 and 32838, inclusive. Coming up shortly!

Source: GitHub, previous round: 2686169 (latest), offset: 2, selected round: 2686171, salt: fYJnkVPxU2CQUGIPWXwh.

@citrinitas voted Bxg3 (weight 300)

@TenShino voted Bxg3 (weight 6302)

@prigoryan voted Bxg3 (weight 2000)

@A voted Resign (weight 316)

@jack voted Resign (weight 16872)

@harfe voted c5 (weight 1405)

@deagol voted Bxd4+ (weight 1500)

@JoshuaB voted Bxg3 (weight 4143)

Totals:

Bxg3: 12745

Resign: 17188

c5: 1405

Bxd4+: 1500

To be chosen from a random draw 1-32838

1-12745 = Bxg3

12746-29933 = Resign

29934-31338 = c5

31339-32838 = Bxd4+

!VOTE Bxg3 let’s uh, hope this works out, eh?

!vote Bxd4+

@harfe Sell it! 😅

!VOTE Resign

@A Out of curiosity, why are you joining the resign vote too?

Is it because it's profitable to jump on whatever the current leader is to try to pick up more certain profits on this market, vs voting and betting on a less likely candidate is riskier and more of a lottery ticket?

@jack Yeah, looks like it's going that way anyways so I might as well switch over to a net NO position and try to salvage a little bit of the profit. Even if you don't manage to resign this move that probably just kicks the can down the road a few turns. I didn't do the math though lol, yeah I don't know if I'm actually positive EV here.

@A Also TBH this game needs to be put out of its misery, your sword of Damocles hanging over it is making me anxious lol.

@A @citrinitas @jack Agreed. What I don’t understand is the abstentionism of some who got tons of YES shares, even unhedged. Makes me think this futarchy thing might have some issues.

@deagol Oh yeah, this structure definitely has a lot of issues. My theory was "it works for normal stocks so it should be fine for manifold chess too right?" and now I'm shocked that the modern stock market functions at all

@citrinitas I think the key difference between here and the stock market is whether the number of shares is limited. Here, anyone can create an infinite number of voting YES shares as long as they create corresponding NO shares at the same time. In the real stock market, you can only create NON-voting shares that way. (Some caveats relating to short selling etc maybe but there are still some economic limits there since you need to ultimately borrow real shares from someone.) I think it would be interesting (maybe once Manifold adds support for stocks?) to re-run this experiment with a fixed number of initial voting shares that can be traded and no ability to create more. I think there are still some possible shenanigans with buying shares and then hedging but at least it's less susceptible to whales creating millions of hedged shares at zero risk and out-voting everyone else by orders of magnitude.

@citrinitas Individuals rarely vote their on shareholder meetings, it’s mostly institutions (funds), which are much more informed and aware of their economic interests, so this kind of market failure is rare (meme stocks and wallstreetbets redditors notwithstanding). Also there’s several layers of highly paid executive competence (and red tape) between those votes and implementing and executing company policies. Finally, “funny money” like ᛗ (also some stocks) enables some crazy stuff (like when AOL “bought” Time Warner with stock worth $165b).

@A that’s just called a leveraged buyout (raise a ton of debt to buy control and then put the debt on the company’s books), happens all the time. But yes, there are limits to this. And owners of a potentially winning enterprise will not acquiesce to it, like all did here.

In this particular experiment, I found the economic vs. political power dynamics fascinating.

!VOTE c5

@harfe crap. please ignore.

@harfe no

!VOTE Bxg3

!VOTE Bxg3

!VOTE NULL