🏅 Top traders

I think by my reading of the question this should resolve yes, although it's not very clear.

Counts as YES even if a question needs to be vetted by the team (however slow/fast the process is.)

The team selects specific markets to sweepify

Counts as NO if users can suggest questions, but the question is not directly tied to the user once it opens for trading. For example, if an official account posts the question a la Kalshi. (sans profit sharing)

The question is still tied to the original user who is shown as the creator.

@jgyou

@jack Very sorry. I missed this.

Indeed, this was YES for a while -- I literally had a sweepified question.
(Even if the process was janky and could not be applied to random questions.)

But there has since been large NO bets (because of the ban.)

I wish I could partially N/A to every bets made *after* Feb 1st. @mods advice?

@jgyou seems like a yes resolution to me as well

@jgyou you were able to, so should've resolved yes a while ago

@jgyou Oof, yeah, I bet NO per discontinuation of sweepstakes.

@jgyou YES or NA seem reasonable to me (and I say this as someone with a NO position)

Thanks for the input. Sorry for the messy resolution folks.

@SG Love to see it! Reimbursed.

@SG 👀

@jgyou It's very unlikely users would ever be able to create a sweepcash market directly, but we're thinking about creating a streamlined flow for user requests to sweepify their markets...

@SG Makes sense. I updated the description while you were betting btw. Happy to reimburse you if the clarification changes your odds.

@jgyou would my proposal of a hyper-streamlined approval process make this market resolve yes? the terms seem even more ambiguous now.

@SG That would be YES if it still shows up as my question!

@SG maybe just call it “staking” the market. Or maybe stoking??