Resolves YES if Manifold supports creating fixed-payout multiple-choice or free-response markets before June 1. Otherwise NO.
Currently, multiple choice and free-resonse markets use the Dynamic Parimutuel (DPM) market mechanism. The downsides of this mechanism have been well documented on Manifold, including that later trades as the outcome becomes more clear can effectively eat into the profits of earlier trades, and that there is no support for predicting NO on a specific outcome.
There's already a proposal for how to replace DPM markets with multiple linked binary markets: https://manifoldmarkets.notion.site/Multi-set-of-binary-markets-8bd7ad1fde074e67b75bc1dd65f9a59a and https://manifoldmarkets.notion.site/Multi-set-of-binary-markets-8bd7ad1fde074e67b75bc1dd65f9a59a
Resolution details:
Resolves YES even if they are implemented and then removed later.
Resolves YES even if it is only supported for one of multiple choice or free response, but not the other.
Resolves YES even if it is simply a grouping of binary markets that have no market mechanism linkage, but are created and displayed together. In my opinion, this already delivers most of the value, and having market mechanism that e.g. keeps mutually exclusive options summing to 1 is bonus. (There is a small chance that this criteria could be somewhat subjective, I will ask a resolution council to resolve if there is ambiguity.)
Only support after the creation date of this market counts. This was already supported and removed in late 2022 with Multi-CPMM markets (that mechanism was removed because it had some issues that led liquidity to go to almost zero over time).
Related questions
🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ137 | |
| 2 | Ṁ113 | |
| 3 | Ṁ104 | |
| 4 | Ṁ89 | |
| 5 | Ṁ51 |
From today, I would guess @JamesGrugett does this later in March/April:
[i] We don’t have a fixed-payout multi choice/FR project on our march projects list, seems like that could be a good one. People love FR and MC markets but they get poor engagement, they’re like a trap.
[J] Yeah! I want to work on a new version of this. I think I’ve iterated to the right mechanism from previous attempts.
[s] what would you do differently?
[J] Each answer is a binary contract. Because we now have a closed form for amount to move to a probability, it’s tractable.
I actually do believe the new version would be very powerful and unlock a lot of use cases.
Allows for betting on a whole numerical dimension, if you have many cutoff points
[J] to reprioritize after completing the feed
[s] James did implement and remove this before
[s] Still think we might want to ax everything and go back to binary only
[c] this does strike me as important. I think people would like to bet on multi choice if the mechanism was good. Allows for more questions, etc.