100+ means 100 or more.
Resolves NO if there are 99 or less unique traders.
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ201 | |
| 2 | Ṁ109 | |
| 3 | Ṁ66 | |
| 4 | Ṁ64 | |
| 5 | Ṁ62 |
Sorry for the very late enforcement! Unfortunately, these types of markets don't add much to our community so I've unlisted it as per our guidelines on self-referential markets: https://help.manifold.markets/community-guidelines
@ian I see. Personally I think that even though these markets seem cheap on the surface I think they've helped me internalize many game theory and psychology ideas. Predicting the behavior of adversarial agents 🤖 that change in response to your predictions can be quite non-trivial and is often as interesting as predicting other types of events like the weather. ⛈
@MartyDettmann @levifinkelstein since the resolution criteria has been met, would you resolve this early?
@ZZZZZZ Ah I think you're right, if "unique traders" is what's shown in the market details as "Traders". There was a big controversy around this a few weeks ago, right? I think someone resolved based on "Users", which can go down.
@levifinkelstein you can get higher guaranteed returns betting on permanent stocks so there's no point in buying something to wait a month from my perspective
@levifinkelstein it seems Manifold has removed the ability to see the number of unique traders on a market which you used to be able to do by going to your Markets list and sorting by popular
@levifinkelstein ok, I can confirm you can still see it by going to the Traders number on the market. Though, that number used to be Users and show only the number of people holding stock in the market.
@ZZZZZZ The 'Market details' pane (three dots) has always shown total unique traders (including those who no longer hold shares). The Traders tab used only to show the number of shareholders, and now show the number of total unique traders.
@levifinkelstein Hmm, now that I thought more, I think I miscalculated that it automatically would give you ~100 unique participant mana bonuses. Some reverse inference happened.
@degtorad haha, like I could ask a question then resolve it YES and suddenly I'm god emperor of universe?
@levifinkelstein Something like that, though that was a fruit of undifferentiated thought so there can’t really be any similarities with defined wordy stuff. I think that’s akin to semantic hallucinations encountered in droves when dreaming.
@levifinkelstein Why do you think this? What if I bet on a market that we'll have AGI in 2030 and then dedicated myself to build one? It's not insider trading, collusion, fake users, or anything like that (I understand why people often are against all of these). I'm just creating the world I want to live in ;)