What markets were intentionally and fraudulently misresolved in 2022?

The goal of this market is to compile a list of clear cases of authors committing intentional fraud in misresolutions. These are very rare and I can only think of a couple examples. [Edit: they were very rare until recently when a few scammer authors started doing it on a lot of markets]

Each answer should be a specific market. Resolves equally (up to 20% each) to all answers that were incorrectly resolved, intentionally and fraudulently, during 2022, based on community consensus. Borderline cases may count as half.

This criteria may be somewhat subjective, but relevant factors include: did the author take the mana and run? Did the author brag about trolling traders? Etc.

If there are up to 5 answers that are accepted, each of them will be chosen at a 20% share, and the answer "Less than 5" will be chosen with the remainder. If there are more than 5, then resolves to each of them equally. (For the purposes of this calculation, borderline cases count as half.)

Includes markets both past and future, as long as they resolved in 2022.

Fine print:

I will do my best to clarify the criteria based on community discussion and consensus, but ultimately it is subjective and ambiguous. I don't know how to clearly define fraudulent, for example - if anyone has input on how to make it clearer please comment!
Only submitted answers will be considered. If a market meets the criteria but nobody submits it, then it doesn't count. I intend to submit any markets that I notice that qualify, but of course I might miss some.
Late resolution will not be considered in this market, although I can think of at least one case of intentional late resolution.
If there are duplicate answers that refer to the same market, only the earliest will be chosen.

This question is managed and resolved by Manifold.

#Manifold

#Predictions on Predictions

#Meta-markets on improper resolution

Get

1,000

and

3.00

25 Comments

11 Holders

41 Trades

Sort by:

See also the many other unintentional misresolutions which may have been unintentional

https://manifold.markets/jack/what-markets-will-i-consider-to-hav and the following markets

https://manifold.markets/o/how-many-improperly-resolved-market

@jack can I steal this or do you want to do it again?

@enemel Please do! One thing I would suggest to make things easier is tweaking the rules with something like this:

If a single author fraudulently misresolves a large number of markets, you can submit a single answer naming the author and listing all of the markets in a comment. This answer will be counted as however many of those markets meet the criteria for fraudulent misresolution that were not already submitted as answers.

@jack thank you! here's the market:

I believe all of the submitted markets count here, except for these two which were correctly resolved:

And of course "Less than 5" will not be selected :(

If anyone sees something I missed or has objections, let me know, otherwise resolving soon.

@Yev I think this might be the first intentional misresolution by Gigacasting

One million dollars to produce the most important open-source event of the year

Tens of millions of dollars to ramble about how AI is bad and promote some quasi-religion with no one on the team who even knows how to train a neural network

Result: Based Ethics

@Gigacasting That would be fine(-ish) if the resolution criteria was "my own belief as of the end of the market". It wasn't.

(-ish because one might reasonably suspect you had that outcome in mind from the beginning.)

😭

@Yev I strongly considered submitting something along the lines of "Like 90% JojoTheBanker's markets, I hope you'll accept this as valid, I really don't want to add them all individually."

I would actually have been happy to accept some answer that served as an aggregate of all those markets, I doubt anyone would object.

Well, that sucks.

Sorry :P

@IsaacKing lol, thanks for doing the work of listing them. Maybe the probability of manifold tackling the problem goes up now.

@jack What problem? The fact that people can resolve markets incorrectly?

@IsaacKing yes. I am optimistic that this is a solvable problem, see https://manifold.markets/jack/poll-should-it-be-possible-to-dispu

Any method that lets traders determine the resolution will have the same problems as it would if the creator implemented it directly, which we're currently uncertain about.

@IsaacKing If you're referring to self-resolving markets, that is definitely not my idea - letting the traders determine it by betting their mana on the resolution would be a terrible idea I believe.

My idea is to have resolution be determined by a reliable, reputable group such as reputable authors or admins or etc, with the same norms about proper/improper resolution as we have normally. I think it's clear that this would be more reliable than trusting individual authors.

See Predictor's comments on that market. This was done in direct response to the previous misresolved market https://manifold.markets/stone/whats-the-oldest-meme-passed-on-fro as part of the dicussion on how to handle such misresolutions: see https://manifold.markets/FRCassarino/should-manifold-override-the-intent and https://manifold.markets/jack/poll-should-it-be-possible-to-dispu

I'm considering modifying the rules of this market to select borderline cases at half weight (so 10%, or half as much a share as clear cases). I don't think this would particularly harm anyone, let me know if anyone has objections.

@MartinRandall It does look suspicious, but not super clear to me. What do people think?

@jack I agree it does look a bit suspicious

@MichaelWheatley Actually, now that you mention @Predictor....

Oh, nevermind, I read the fine print.

Related questions

Related questions