https://manifold.markets/jack/will-biden-be-president-on-915-reso shows Volume: M$375,539. This is very incorrect, there were millions of M$ bet on this market. (I suspect the issue might have something to do with limit orders not being counted correctly.) The bulk of the investment was from @NinthCause who invested M$1,872,324 in the market. So that's a very easy lower bound on the volume.
Resolves YES if by end of 2023 the volume displayed on this market is corrected to at least M$1.8 million. Resolves NO otherwise.
(M$1.8 million is to allow for some degree of inaccuracy, it just has to be in the right ballpark, and this way I don't have to adjudicate cases where the calculation changes or figure out whether it's exactly correct.)
Update: Now that the author leaderboard no longer is based on trading volume, I removed part of the criteria that was no longer relevant. The original resolution criteria was as follows, and it is no longer relevant because of the next paragraph:
Resolves YES if by end of 2023 the volume displayed on this market is corrected to at least M$1.8 million, and the leaderboard for top creators also reflects this corrected value. Resolves NO otherwise.
Sep 28, 10:40pm: The intent is that the market volume stat on the market must be corrected and the leaderboard must use this corrected market volume stat if it uses the market volume stat at all. So e.g. if the market volume were corrected but the leaderboard were deleted entirely or the market were intentionally excluded from the leaderboard, that would resolve YES.
Related questions
🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ63 | |
| 2 | Ṁ26 | |
| 3 | Ṁ19 | |
| 4 | Ṁ9 | |
| 5 | Ṁ2 |
@Yev I guess I'd say that case is YES.
The intent is that the market volume stat on the market must be corrected and the leaderboard must use this corrected market volume stat if it uses the market volume stat at all. Another example is that if the leaderboard were deleted entirely, but the market volume were corrected, that would resolve YES.
However, I will allow for some degree of inaccuracy, it just has to be in the right ballpark, which is why the standard for "corrected" is at least M$1.8 million - that way there's some built in leniency and I don't have to figure out whether it's exactly correct.
@jack And what if the future markets have volume calculated correctly, but pre-existing markets don't get fixed?
I created a group for all of my markets just to see if the market creator stats matched up with the leaderboard. It does not, my group says $123K, the leader board says $109K. This was obvious really because the Twitter/Musk market alone has like $160K volume. What is stranger is that liquidity counts toward market creator totals dollar for dollar, this is easily testable, but where does the rest of the total come from? That I can't figure out. Maybe it is the total amount I have bet both in and out of markets I created? Why do the stats have different definitions in different contexts? Any insight on this? Or where can we see the formula for calculating these numbers?
@jack My Global Macro has yet another Market Creator total for me of $284K, and this is just a subset of all of my markets, which are supposedly only $123K or $109K - depending which leaderboard you check. I did change my username at some point, so perhaps that lead to a cascading issue that is still unresolved?
Sorry to talk all about myself on a question about you, haha. I guess I just assume you maybe pay somewhat close attention to these numbers too. Millions missing on this market means you should have orders of magnitude lead on the market creator leaderboard and you do not. It does seem like your creator stats have exploded recently, but I assumed that was the byproduct of your experiments in market psychology or whatever the Biden markets are about?
These formulas should all be public and on one page with clear definitions.