Will the Manifold Partner program be changed to incentivize high quality markets?
11
106
1k
2025
53%
chance

The payout structure currently incentivizes spammy, repetitive markets, to get onto feeds. Will Manifold change this?

Things that might count:

Paying more for high quality markets

Paying for forming a community/engagement with the community

Not paying for stock/crypto date close markets

Paying for new market structures, or novel market ideas

Paying for: (from the partner explainer page)

  • Detailed market descriptions.

  • Good management of markets including clarifying confusion from comments or unexpected events.

Incentives do not have to be completely financial. Allowing only high quality creators, changing the leaderboard, are sufficient.

I will not trade in this market.

Resolves to my judgement at the end of the year. This market could resolve to a percentage, if some small steps are taken

Get Ṁ600 play money
Sort by:

@nikki does even a small change/nudge in that direction qualifies for resolving Yes? to give a few examples:

1. David making a new announcement that markets of creator partners with poor/unclear description are subjected to be excluded from bonus
2. David making an statement that "It's important that the markets our partners are bringing value to the site and not just farming bonuses." (he made such statement on Mar 13th)
3. David making some people who is far from meeting the base requirement creator partners because he thinks they have good potential to enhance engagement with the community

@AmmonLam

  1. Would resolve NO if that's the only statement with no enforcement, 20% if people are actually excluded from the bonus

  2. Status quo, resolves NO. There is zero action on that, as far as I know

  3. Resolves to 50% if Manifold prioritizes good market creators

    In general, I value actual incentives higher than kicking people out of partner, or demonetizing partners.

Can anyone explain why my markets aren't good? I've read lots of opinions on discord about this, but that's all I've found. Has there been any actual arguments formed or just non stock traders dont like them in their feed?

That's all I see is complaints about how the algorithm works and how it caused people to get spammed out - which happens to me too with politics/Taylor swift/gossip based markets. I agree that the algorithm isn't getting traders were they wanna be, but what's wrong with stock close highers? If traders don't trade we stop doing that stock and try to find ones traders are interested it.

@KeenenWatts To many traders, it doesn't add value and it isn't actual prediction.

@nikki Why is more traders a bad thing?

Stock close highers add more value than another Taylor Swift market or any other "gossip" based market. I can't think of any valuable market about Taylor besides if she will endorse Biden or not.

People bet on sports after the game is over... According to the community guidelines all sports questions should be unlisted, but NFL games got lots of traders so they said sports can ignore that rule.... Several stock close highers end 30mins - 1 hour before stock closes. That means they have to predict what will happen in that time... What do you consider an "actual" prediction?

@KeenenWatts "According to the community guidelines all sports questions should be unlisted" where?

Taylor Swift markets are fine, since there is not a single identical market that closes every day. There aren't many markets about Swift on other sites, so this adds value to Manifold.

"People bet on sports after the game is over" The liquidity is all gone at that point. Not much point of trading. I don't consider most sports market high quality trading either, and the partner program shouldn't really incentivize rent-seeking repetitive markets.

In general, any market that can be live arbitraged from other sites, like Yuna, Tungl, Manakin or similar bots isn't really interesting.

@nikki

Under what can be delisted. Reacting to the sports game isn't predicting. It's reacting. Whales can still put 2-4k mana and get a bit of profit like 10-40 depending. Some do this over 100-1000 markets and make lots of profit from reacting to events that already happened. Some of these people are top 20 in masters.

It's your own personal opinion that Taylor Swift markets are fine? What's the argument for Taylor Swift gossip providing more value than Stock Close highers?

I haven't seen a bot dominate my stock close highers. I've seen multiple people try and then they say their bots are too dumb and can't do stocks. The early close time really screws up the bot. No one has figured out how to predict how a stock will close. When they do I assume they will go invest in actual stocks and not spend time making a bot to farm mana. Yuna dominated my NHL markets for months - if I closed the market before the game she didn't dominate. She had the same chance as everyone else - but traders prefer not to be locked in their positions. So I just leave the games open on unlinked MC.

Is this market and this market good? IMO they are good and I expect these to be on the site for years. I framed it so it's hard to bet ATM, we need more studies to be done. No one asked about CHS till I did and it's important I think because some people might have already died from it. I made that market because I thought it would be a good market and I still think that. But it will take time to get traders... I can't keep making markets that take time to get traders... You run out of mana then you have a bunch of "good," markets that no one is interested in trading on ATM.

100 mana cost is brutal and doesn't cause more long term markets like this. It causes more markets that are sure to get traders in a timely fashion like Bitcoin/Nvidia.

At 50 traders you hit diminishing returns. From 5 mana to 1 mana. Then at 500 traders you get 0 mana per trader. As a partner you still earn money for those traders. So as a partner you have more reason than a normal user to make a good long term market.

bought Ṁ30 NO

I don't think they'll do stuff like: go through your markets and deactivate payment for that market if it's low quality, or doesn't have a good enough description, etc.

I do think they'll do stuff like: look at your overall market quality, and kick you out of the program if it's too low, or add you to the program quicker if it's very high quality

So in the first sense I don't expect the partner program to incentivize high quality markets, but in the second sense they already are and will do so more and more. How would this market resolves if this is right?

@Bayesian second sense. probably to like 30% if they actually kick people out/don't pay them for low quality markets. YES if they enforce requiring high quality markets, without payment

bought Ṁ30 NO

@nikki ty! Also, the title includes "changed to incentivize [...]". I'm pretty sure they already do this, ie they didn't pick the 20 market creators with the most traders in the last month as first partners, they picked the ones in the top, say, 40, that had the highest quality or consistency or wtv. Wouldn't that already apply, and would it resolve YES if they're doing this way more than you currently expect already, but they don't change it at all by EOY?

@Bayesian No, I do not believe that the current partner leaderboard or partner selection reflects incentivizing good quality markets at all.

@nikki Nothing against these creators, just that Manifold is incentivizing the wrong thing

@Bayesian I would probably resolve this NO today, if it closed now

sold Ṁ7 YES

@nikki fair enough