Levi meaning @levifinkelstein
Resolves to expert consensus at market close.
Here, expert consensus is defined as a vote of badged Manifold users in a poll I'll conduct. Resolves to the majority vote.
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ765 | |
| 2 | Ṁ300 | |
| 3 | Ṁ186 | |
| 4 | Ṁ82 | |
| 5 | Ṁ61 |
People are also trading
Poll results were 8 votes YES, 2 votes NO. The poll was conducted in the trustworthyish channel in discord (also includes admins), anyone else there can verify the results.
Resolves YES.
Note: This poll was to get an idea of people's perspectives, not to drive a decision. Manifold came to that decision separately, although presumably taking all the discussion that took place as an input to their decision.
Btw, some of the specifics of this market's structure were chosen to parody https://manifold.markets/levifinkelstein/does-god-exist-3fa346bb3232 - but the overall question was serious and it worked well to find out that there was a pretty strong view favoring banning.
@Jason I probably should’ve changed my vote from NO to YES given the new evidence but I forgot
@jack Am I correct in understanding that trustworthy-ish users had access to private conversations and bet accordingly regarding the outcome of this market? Maybe this is fine but I’d just like confirmation.
@NicoDelon Correct. We did mention that in the comments btw. We did some insider-ish trading - which I think is generally considered acceptable here.
@jack I don’t think the ‘ish’ is needed here. That’s insider trading. Whether it is generally considered acceptable depends a lot on the kind of market we’re talking about. Since one of the issues with Levi’s markets was his taking huge positions in his own markets, you guys could have led by example. Not a huge deal but it’s not exactly the best look. And it’s not just that the private poll influenced betting; it’s plausible positions might have influenced poll answers.
@NicoDelon I already gave a very detailed summary of our discussions for everyone's benefit.
E.g. https://manifold.markets/jack/should-levi-be-banned#ECwUx3bc2zkPxDK7YZRX was from a post I put in our private chat, and then https://manifold.markets/jack/should-levi-be-banned#poEjC7RWbgxDToh5oviT was a summary of some of the arguments and counterarguments.
@jack I think you also mentioned that this market style (with the binary resolution instead of percentage) was also intended as a parody of Levi’s
@jack I guess. Maybe others mind it? I mean, step back and look at it as an external observer. The three largest gains are by trustworthy-ish users who not only had insider information but could influence the outcome. Like I said, not a huge deal, but you can’t evade the bad look just by claiming it’s parody.
@Conflux A market that resolves YES or NO instead of percentage is a parody? Like only Levi did that?
@NicoDelon I was just asking Jack why he chose that format for this market, since it seemed like a percentage would be more logical and Jack has done percentages for this kind of stuff in the past
@NicoDelon Couple points:
The whole point of restricting it to trustworthy users was to reduce the risks of poll manipulation. We have observed a few instances of poll votes being made dishonestly to profit on a market among open-to-everyone polls (it's still pretty uncommon but it has happened), but none from polls of trustworthy users only.
Now, maybe you wonder, why couldn't I create a rule saying that poll-takers can't trade? As an author I can and sometimes do say I won't trade in the market. But I don't think it's appropriate for me to forbid other eligible poll-takers from trading in the market. I also wouldn't want to say "you can either trade or vote, you choose" because that also creates problems, e.g. discouraging participation in the poll.
Also, in this particular case, I can very confidently say that the outcome was not influenced by voters casting their vote to benefit their position in this market. There were three badged users who traded here, myself, Conflux, and SneakySly. Conflux voted opposite their bets. SneakySly and I both publicly stated our opinions in favor of a ban long before trading here.
That said, I very much understand this concern in general and it's something I've been thinking about in general, for the question of e.g. how can we have reliable poll resolutions on questions where the knowledgeable and trustworthy people are likely to be trading already? And I recognize that ensuring that everyone sees the process as honest and trustworthy is extremely important. This is a very tough challenge in general and something that I don't think can be easily solved.
@jack I understand all of this, and, I guess, fair enough. I'm just telling you how it may look. Not everyone seems to agree based on their behavior on here, but I think a badge should come with some responsibilities, and it doesn't strike me as totally unreasonable that sometimes this means no betting on some markets. Like, if some user won't answer an important poll because they want to squeeze profits out of the market, I guess maybe they shouldn't have the badge?
Like I said, none of this matters a great deal, and I really appreciate the time you're taking to respond. I was just struck, when the market resolved, to see you reap the top profits.
@NicoDelon I profited the second most here but anyone paying even the remotest bit of attention has seen me loudly proclaim my support for YES all across the discord and the platform. I was just voting with my mana as well.
@ii The ban is comments and new markets and betting in their own markets only, and lasts for 5 days. They're still expected to be around to resolve their markets.
@Mira oh just a 5 day ban.. interesting okay. I guess there is at least a baseline to compare and contrast with now.
@Stralor Yeah, but the fact that he was banned implies that people think think he should be banned. In particular, Manifold employees do, and they are one of the groups voting on the resolution to this market. Even the people not directly involved in the ban are probably more likely to say that he should be now that it has actually happened.
@JosephNoonan what kind of ban? is it only for a few weeks? or is it the type of ban where you can still bet on stuff, but cant comment? or is it a real lifetime ban on the account?
nvm i figured it out::
