I am resolving the $3399 and $3299 options to YES as there is now a $200 discount (5.7%) on Woot - https://www.tomsguide.com/sales-events/hurry-apple-vision-pro-just-got-its-first-discount-save-dollar200

As of March 28, you can get the Apple Vision Pro for $3,299 at Woot!. That's $200 off its normal price of $3,499 and a 6% discount. There's one caveat: it comes with the Light Seal (21W), Solo Knit Band (Small), and Dual Loop Band (Small) accessories, Woot! notes, so if those sizes don't work for you, you might want to pass up this discount. This deal is available for the next month or until all the units sell out.

Source: https://mashable.com/article/march-28-apple-vision-pro-deal

@firstuserhere Dude… you technically can bet a bunch on one of the options in your own market before resolving it, but it’s not the best look…

@Santiago why not? It's subsidy I added and am reclaiming it, it's 20 mana

@firstuserhere I don’t think that’s how it works in general.

1) First, if the intended design was for the market creator to receive their subsidy mana back after market resolves, that could be the automatic behavior of Manifold markets. Creators already receive incentives in the form of bonuses for participants.

2) That behavior (betting on own market before resolving) can yield a lot more profit than just the subsidy. In this specific case it seems that it didn’t, but not everyone is going to look into it like I did, and if the behavior is normalized, it can result in a pretty bad incentive system.

@Santiago lol

1. No one bet on the market I resolved. (Hence, no trader bonus)

2. No, it can't, where do you think profit comes from? Its either house subsidy or other people's subsidy, either via a trade or by injecting liquidity directly.

@firstuserhere

1. There were two other positions on that specific option. I already specified that you didn’t profit from it, but you could’ve.

2. It can absolutely yield more profit that the subsidy. Here is an example from one of my markets. If I resolve this option to Yes and bet M1,000 right before, I’ll get M1,800 in profit (a lot more than what I put in as subsidy when I created the market). The profit comes from the mana that other people have bet on the option that doesn’t happen (in this case on No).

@Santiago that's because other people have injected mana into that market via trades.

Anyway, i get your point, but it's super common for most people to slam their markets to 100 or 0 before resolving

@Santiago anyway, how's this?

@firstuserhere You beat me to it.

I have to admit that I hadn’t seen that behavior before, and now that I looked for it, I do see it, but I wouldn’t say it’s “super common. And I still don’t think it’s kosher, though.

The problem is that the only way to prevent it is to disallow trading on one’s own market. And, to be honest, if it was up to me I would not let people bet on their own markets.

@Santiago the trouble with that is, people ask questions they wanna bet on but don't see them. Like this question, I wanted there to be a market and so i made it, and would be one of the few people who are interested enough in it to ask it, spending mana. Not being able to trade on an objective market would be off putting to creators imo

@firstuserhere I think the loss in enthusiasm of not allowing people to bet on their own markets is less than the potential for abuse.

There’s very few markets that are truly “objective”. There’s often different reasonable positions about what counts as meeting the criteria. Many criteria are in the creator’s head and can’t be fully spelled out a priori. Allowing this behavior creates a strong incentive for creators to resolve the market with a high surprise factor.

Just like allowing people to bet on their own markets creates a strong incentive to see things the way they voted, which introduces a bias.

Resolving the option of $3499 to YES as that's the sale price on Apple stores.