Apparently, they found an infinite mana glitch that only utilizes the mana economy, not a software exploit. Resolves "Yes" if they reveal it. Pacific standard time.
I may bet in this market, if ambiguous, I will ask for a moderator to help resolve.
Update 2026-02-11 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): If the exploit never actually worked, the market will resolve No (not N/A). If it worked at the time of the original post but was later patched, it still resolves Yes.
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Trader | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ20 | |
| 2 | Ṁ16 | |
| 3 | Ṁ13 | |
| 4 | Ṁ4 |
People are also trading
ok, so, the situation is that ItsMe replied what seemed to be essentially a "yes" to someone else who said it... which is already ambiguous enough, but also, the "glitch" is legitimately just having an alt account. so. yeah. really not sure how this resolves. i said that the mods would be asked to resolve the market if ambiguous, and although that was mainly so that if i had bet in it, it would remain fair, it doesn't say that i could resolve ambiguity on my own if i don't bet, so for the sake of transparency... @mods, could you help me out? i think that N/A would be okay, but i'm no expert.
@geuber I mean... according to criteria it resolves YES. He did reveal his exploit, which doesn't require software, just making new accounts.
@Qoiuoiuoiu so after thinking about it, then completely forgetting about it, then realizing my stupidity, i think i’ll resolve yes, although this was a pretty freaking bad market, i was expecting something that wasn’t… completely known already.
@Hakari uhh… as long as it worked at the time of their post, resolves yes. if it was patched after the post, still resolves yes, but if it never worked, then resolves… uh… N/A? or no? i’ll go with no, unless y’all give me compelling reasons to N/A or 50% or something.