Resolves NO if before June 1 (Eastern time), the US raises or suspends the debt ceiling.
Resolves NO if the US defaults on its debt in 2023.
Resolves YES otherwise (if the US neither raises the debt before June ceiling nor defaults in 2023).
This question is intended to help answer: "If the US fails to raise the debt ceiling before June 1, how likely is default?". See also https://manifold.markets/SimonGrayson/will-the-us-debt-ceiling-be-raised-4dfbab873f7b#NCK95nCmDyevr09h9JvA
Definitions:
Raising or suspending the debt ceiling is defined the same as https://manifold.markets/jack/will-the-us-debt-ceiling-be-raised
Default is defined the same as https://manifold.markets/jack/will-the-us-government-default-on-i
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ163 | |
| 2 | Ṁ151 | |
| 3 | Ṁ71 | |
| 4 | Ṁ54 | |
| 5 | Ṁ44 |
People are also trading
Am I misreading the criteria? Does not seem possible to resolve YES any longer and therefore can only resolve NO or NA.
Resolves NO if before June 1 (Eastern time), the US raises or suspends the debt ceiling.
Resolves NO if the US defaults on its debt in 2023.
Resolves YES if the US neither raises the debt ceiling nor defaults.
The debt ceiling was raised, so it seems like YES is not possible but NO might, although is unlikely to, happen. If there was some Errata or clarification to the resolution criteria the description probably should have been updated to reflect that.
@ShitakiIntaki The third scenario (YES) is true at this moment, since the ceiling was not raised before June and there’s been no default. But there must continue to be no default this year to avoid the second scenario (NO).
@ShitakiIntaki it’s clearly referencing that time bounded clause from the first scenario, otherwise not all possibilities are covered. Also, the title explicitly states this time bound applies.
It should have referenced the first criteria, yes.
Resolves NO if A or B
Else
Resolves YES
@deagol I hope the description is updated to most accurately reflect the intent.
The title only allows so many characters, so if there is a discrepancy between a market's title and its description, I generally assume the description prevails if it is more verbose than the title due to the fact that the market creator took the time to setforth the market resolution criteria in greater detail via the description.
@ShitakiIntaki so on June 3 you accurately assessed the intent and profited by betting YES, but today all of a sudden you got confused, with no change in the criteria?
@deagol newcomers to this market might be confused by the wording. I agree that changing the title/description is a good idea.
@MayMeta I disagree, this conjunction of two clauses was always clear from the beginning and trading quickly coalesced to the obvious implication in late May, moreso on June 1 (first clause met), and even further on June 3 (second clause set to be met by end of the year)
In the third sentence, I meant resolves YES if neither of the first two criteria are met "Resolves YES if the US neither raises the debt ceiling before June nor defaults before end of 2023." My mistake in poor wording.
As people have said above, I think this the only possible interpretation consistent with the title and rest of the description of the question (the definitions in particular make it sufficiently unambiguous, because they define the specific time frames as well), but I can see why people were confused because of it. I have fixed it.
@MarcusAbramovitch In an earlier comment I said
Even then, it could still resolve no because the US could default for some unanticipated reason, but because this is very unlikely I think it's sensible to resolve YES now and reresolve in the very unlikely case that happens.
While I am personally am in favor of preliminary resolution of this nature, I understand that not everyone is comfortable with it. I asked people whether I should preliminarily resolve all my markets about US default in 2023, and people generally preferred leaving them until the end of the year. So that's what I'm doing.
@AlexbGoode I'm going to at least wait until next week when the treasury starts issuing new bonds. Even then, it could still resolve no because the US could default for some unanticipated reason, but because this is very unlikely I think it's sensible to resolve YES now and reresolve in the very unlikely case that happens.
@jack To be clear, the resolution criteria runs until end of 2023 and YES resolution remains possible (although unlikely) until then
@jack Why now ignore the second clause? Wasn’t that the whole point this was trying to measure? If resolves as soon as failed to raise ceiling before June 1, then it was just a duplicate of so many others.
@deagol That's not what I said. I was talking about early preliminary resolution with a possible re-resolution if the resolution ends up being different than expected, and specifically said that YES resolution remains possible through the end of 2023.
Unless I'm missing something, the value of this market and the market below shouldn't add up to more than 100%.
This market is for a scenario where the debt ceiling is not raised by the end of May and there's no default. The market below is for a scenario where the debt ceiling is raised. So they can't both resolve to YES.
I've bet NO a bit on both markets as an arbitrage bet, but if this market is meant to be able to act as a predictor of whether or not the US will default if the debt ceiling isn't raised in the next week then they should below 100% in total (with the gap being the chance of no raise and a default).
I'm mentioning all of this in the hope that the market can start to predict this useful info a bit more!
@SimonGrayson That's correct, the two are mutually exclusive.
They are getting slightly out of wack because this one is new and the liquidity is still very low.
@GaryGrenda I think the US failing to pay non-bond government obligations would be pretty bad for the economy as well.
@jack So do I. It's just not a default. And they would get paid almost certainly, just delayed.
@GaryGrenda I did some searching to find what is the usual definition of default. While I think bond repayments are the thing people are most likely to think of, it seems clear to me that other failures to repay non-debt obligations are generally considered default too.
financial default can occur whenever a company fails to meet any kind of financial obligation.
Missed payments for supplies, raw materials, royalties, and similar unsecured operating liabilities.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/default2.asp
This article mostly says that default is failure to make required repayments on debt, but it also gives a differing example:
Defaulting on a futures contract occurs when one party does not fulfill the obligations set forth by the agreement. Defaulting here usually involves the failure to settle the contract by the required date.
And as a specific example of a non-debt obligation that we individuals can more easily relate to, consider rent. Failure to pay rent on time is called default. https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/rent-default
Actually let me copy this to https://manifold.markets/jack/will-the-us-government-default-on-i since that market is more directly about the definition of default, and we can continue discussing there.