Will the costs to create a market be reduced by end of July?
13
4
Ṁ559Ṁ100
resolved Aug 1
Resolved
NO1D
1W
1M
ALL
Resolves YES if it is possible to create markets with an initial cost of less than M$100, otherwise NO.
Daily free markets were just removed, but for the purpose of this question they don't count, only resolves YES if you can create multiple markets a day with less than M$100 cost each.
If the initial cost is less than M$100 but you may be required to put in more money later, still resolves YES.
Get Ṁ200 play money
Related questions
🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ19 | |
| 2 | Ṁ15 | |
| 3 | Ṁ13 | |
| 4 | Ṁ13 | |
| 5 | Ṁ12 |
Sort by:
@JoyVoid I think that'll help a lot, but for people who like to both bet and create markets, that wouldn't change the cost of creating a market.
My thoughts: I think market creators shouldn't be required to put up M$100 of their money for liquidity with the expectation that they'll most likely lose it, and that the new liquidity systems that are under discussion could help by making providing liquidity profitable instead. So once those new liquidity systems are in, there hopefully will be much less of a need for markets to be expensive in the first place.
The M100 cost for creating a market is a pretty strong disincentive. And it is a cost, you should rarely expect to get back the liquidity you provide via maniswap.
A new user could only create 10 markets before running out of m$. And even though I have a lot of M$ it adds up - I would have burned a very large chunk of my M$ on all the markets I've created if they hadn't mostly been free.
This is especially bad if you believe the probability is far from 50%, you're basically forced to bet in order not to burn most of the liquidity you paid, but that locks up more of your M$ and can create bias if the resolution criteria aren't clear.
If we make providing liquidity better and profitable, via limit orders etc, then perhaps authors can create markets with low cost, while liquidity is provided by either the author or others with a profit incentive. I think asking questions and providing liquidity should ideally be separate things, although on the other hand it seems important to have some minimum amount of liquidity on every question to create a good experience and incentive for traders. If limit orders are sufficiently successful, then maniswap AMM liquidity becomes less important and you can still get a good trading experience without much maniswap AMM liquidity.
@jack Also, re: Probability at 50%, I think they should reverse this, there's no reason anymore for this
@JoyVoid I think the free market abuse wasn't an important reason for that change. My impression is that the main reason was to simplify the market creation flow, and another reason that seems important to me is to provide good liquidity across a wider probability range (if you set initial probability very close to 0 or 1 then liquidity becomes terrible if the probability moves far from that)
@bcongdon I agree that markets with much less than M$100 liquidity probably wouldn't work well today. I do think we would need other changes to make the way market creation works better.