So far Isaac and then Ammon Lam lost their badges in the last 10 days.
Will there be another trustworthy ish user who loses their badge this year?
🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ356 | |
| 2 | Ṁ53 | |
| 3 | Ṁ28 | |
| 4 | Ṁ22 | |
| 5 | Ṁ8 |
@firstuserhere Somehow I simultaneously feel like the resolution is wrong and I can't object to the resolution. I guess I should've autistically considered every interpretation of the market rules.
@42irrationalist I think you assumed it'll be taken away for a specific reason, i.e. nefarious usage or exploits, is that right? There are plenty of markets on "will a trustworthy user lose badge for reason <insert reason: inactiveness, fraud, etc>"
@firstuserhere Yeah, basically. Moreover, this one does not feel like "losing a badge", more like "clarifying a badge". We had two types of trustworthy-ish users: power users and "celebrities". And now we have celebrity status clarified properly.
To use an analogy. Imagine there is a market like "Will I lose more than $100 this year without getting any value in return". Then I find two $100 bills on the ground and a minute later their owner comes to me and asks if I saw them, so I give them their money. I'd argue, I didn't "lose" $200 because the money wasn't mine in the first place.
That's how I feel about celebrity getting a different checkmark: they get the sort of status they should have had in the first place.
Not trying to contest the resolution (I think it's ok to resolve it as YES). Just sharing my thoughts.