🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ1,037 | |
| 2 | Ṁ240 | |
| 3 | Ṁ132 | |
| 4 | Ṁ115 | |
| 5 | Ṁ8 |
Hi @levifinkelstein ...would you mind to explain what was the resolution criteria.
Since you didnt specify any criteria, and there has been some debate, it would be appreciated
Hopefully @levifinkelstein will resolve this market at some point.
Levi, please resolve (YES)
@Xiklon I disagree 100%. How is it clearly to mean "at market close" That is, as you mention, a very specific moment, which is 0% of a day (not even a second).
I think your reasoning has nothing to do with this market, as the question doesn't refer to percentages. Possession is clearly time dependent, but again, the question here was not about the duration.
@AllanLacy If you interpret it to be on a day, a day has 24 hours, and it involves duration and time. If you interpret it to be at a time, than the most reasonable interpretation is at market close.
@Xiklon so you are suggesting that the two possible interpretations are
1) had 70 or more followers the whole day, 100% of the day (which automatically makes irrelevant how many followers had at market close), or
2) had 70 or more followers at some specific time (never specified) that amounts 0% of given day,
Both interpretations would be valid for a market where those details were specified. But again, for this market neither of those interpretations are relevant..
@Xiklon and i dont think that's how language works anyways.
If I ask: "Wiil a have COVID on 2024?", is it implied that the question refers to the 365 days of 2024? I dont think so.
@AllanLacy Those are the only ways of interpreting a market like this one. There are no other possible, reasonable interpretations.
If I lose my job tomorrow, I cannot say that I have a job this year. If you no longer have something on a day or in a period of time, you cannot say that you have it on the day or in the period.
Therefore it is clear, if as you interpreted, the market refers to on a certain day, it necessarily follows that there must have been 70+ followers for all 24 hours, because anything less than 24 hours is not a day. As the market was worded at, not on, the more reasonable interpretation is that it referred to market close.
@Xiklon i agree that a possible interpretation (possibly not how Levi meant) is that it refers to whole day.
BUT if there is a small chance it was meant to refer to a specific time, I don't see how it could anyone possibly be sure that it meant "market close".
If someone interpertred that the specific time was noon in Paris, why would that person be wrong as opposed to you? In order to be a valid time, it must had been specified by Levi. Since it was not specified, the more obvious conclusion is that no such specific existed (and if it existed just to be revealed arfer bidding, it would be a bad move from @levifinkelstein i)
@Xiklon did you interpreted this market was supposed to measure the number of followers at market close?
That kind of interpretation is valid if the resolution criteria specify so, or if moving the result is impossible after market close (like results in sports of elections).
But in this case, neither of those scenarios apply: the question doesn't specify when (or how long) the follower count is be meant to hold besides on February 15.
If I give you $1000 on X day, despite of you spending it right away on candy, did you have $1000 on day X?
@AllanLacy No. If you said 'on day X', without specifying when or how long, it refers to the whole day. If I had $1000 for 0 seconds, I did not have $1000. Giving is a one-time action. So you did give me $1000 on day X. But possession being time-dependent, if it was spent immediately with 0-second delay, I did not have $1000 on day X.
If I had $1000 for 1 minute, I had $1000 on .0694444% of day X. It is likewise incorrect to say that I had $1000 on day X, if I did not have any other cash assets.
@Simon1551 I should have internet archived. I did not expect it to increase from 64 to 71 so quickly. It had stayed fairly constant at 70 for a couple of days, before 6 of us withdrew.
@Xiklon I didn't think I needed to but this is levi's fault for not being here at market close
@Simon1551 3:37 PM is well after market close. I was there 5:55 right before market close withdrawing my following . . . welp
@Xiklon but again...it doesn't say "will I have 70 or more followers at market close?" It says at February 15th.
Today (February 15th) it had 70 or more followers, so it should resolve to YES.
@AllanLacy If you want to be precise, it had 70 or more followers on 2/15 85% of the time.
@Xiklon Sue, one could be more specific, if one wants to be.
I particularly don't want to be more specific. Do you agree that the question on the title (asked in future tense, as it was written in the past of 2/15) has the same answer to the question
"Did @levifinkelstein have 70 or more followers on 2/15?"
However you answer this question is the same as how this market should resolve.
@Xiklon you are answering a different question. This market never was about how long Levi had 70 or more followers
(At least both questions have the same answer.)
@AllanLacy The answer is 85% yes and 15% no. I do not know what is not clear. To say that there were 70 or more on a day when 15% of the day did not see 70 or more, is certainly incorrect. The statement is only 85% true. There were 70 or more only on 85% of 2/15, not all of 2/15.
@Xiklon the question never asked for specific percentages.
If you were hungover but only for 4 hours and someone ask you "were you hungover yesterday?", would you reply "no"?
@Xiklon your statement about percentages it's true, but has nothing to do with this market
@AllanLacy Absolutely. Yesterday consists of 24 hours. Being hung over in 4 hours is not being hung over on a day. A part is not the whole.