Previous market with 10 participants got resolved in 3 hours - let's try again with 20!
Related questions
🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ115 | |
| 2 | Ṁ90 | |
| 3 | Ṁ62 | |
| 4 | Ṁ42 | |
| 5 | Ṁ33 |
Why cancel? There is clearly 20 participants on the counter
@oracleofosaka if you can read your own market description, there is no criteria for triggering N/A. You misresolved.
@oracleofosaka why would delisting even be a problem, if the number of participants already reached the threshold.
@KongoLandwalker delisted earlier than reaching 20 participants. People who bet affected any way - better to solve N/A no reason to complain for anybody - except you, who may lead to think it was a coordinated delisting and then promoting to some side groups?
@oracleofosaka delisting is the part of any selfreferential internal risk. You are just bad at following the rules and understanding that predictor has to take even that into account.
Right before the closure there were only 2 No holders, one of them were YOU.
@KongoLandwalker N/A also risk to consider, the bad predictor is you the one that keeps complaining
@oracleofosaka N/A was not a possibility according to the market description! There is no reason for that! Prediction is about traders, not about YOUR RANDOM DECISION to NA.
@KongoLandwalker N/A is always a possibility to avoid trouble when people bet and the circumstances are not fair so better use it and stop whining for your missed opportunity to win 20 MANA, otherwise we'll all see that there was another reason behind the unlisting.
@oracleofosaka I have no idea what "there is another reason behind the unlisting". The reason is: all self-referential markets gets delisted after the Whales-versus-Minnows.
@oracleofosaka I will whine as long as this market is misresolved. I don't care about mana, I care about fair game.
I repeat, before the closure there were only 2 NO holders. One of them were You, so you become an interested party. And then you resolve to NA when the criteria is met and the market should be YES.
If you are changing the rules of the market, you are supposed to update the description. Not tell new criteria AFTER the closure.
@Austin
@KongoLandwalker you can see in the 'related markets' sidebar a lot of self-referential markets that are not unlisted at all. I argued that my markets were attacked and accused of 'funneling' funds to other traders while I only see fun and ways of creating questions that can attract some traders, but obviously some are allowed to do some other if they start to get some traction they'll get unlisted and attacked
@oracleofosaka you think you are targeted. Quite the opposite, the market is delisted according to the platform rule, as all such markets should.
And those still listed markets you refer to were not delisted only because moderators did not come to them yet.
I agree with Kongo, if the claim was to be N/A'd then it should have been done as soon as it was delisted. That you waited until 20 was reached before N/A'ing suggests you were happy to take gain if few people traded but when 20 reached you N/A'd to avoid your mana loss. I don't believe that is within the spirit or letter of the rules.
I have created and reported this at https://manifold.markets/ChristopherRandles/this-claim-is-for-reporting-claims
I see Austin has been tagged but perhaps Sir Salty (DavidChee) would have been better as more market considerations oriented, already posted here, and first port of call. Admins don't like too many admins being tagged particularly unnecessarily or inappropriately. Kongo not sure if you want to consider changing that or whether that makes it better or worse.
@ChristopherRandles I will not change my comment. I am not familiar with the admins responsibilities, but if I made a mistake - let it be. And I don't know how the notification would be changed if the linked comment is modified.
Thanks for pointing out.
@KongoLandwalker Would suggest you not participate in markets from this creator in the future. "Oracle of Osaka", aka Hyperpolitan, previously made a bunch of personal, unverifiable markets to scam people of their mana and funnel their profit to another person, AA @alby (the only person that held NO shares in this market). See https://manifold.markets/oracleofosaka/going-for-a-walk-will-i-encounter-a-f19e29286332
N/A because has been delisted, which affects the participation.
@oracleofosaka that has been taken into account by bettors (because delisting is not a new thing).
And this was not written into the question.
Has to resolve YES
@oracleofosaka Self-referential markets are delisted, that's always been the case since WvM. If you didn't want it to be delisted you shouldn't have made it at all.
Lots of new traders. Only 2 more needed.
Where did they all come from? Might they want to try
https://manifold.markets/ChristopherRandles/riskless-mana-will-this-claim-get-m
and/or
https://manifold.markets/ChristopherRandles/at-close-will-the-chance-displayed
see comments for risk free mana opportunities.
@DavidChee are you unlisting all these kind of markets or only mine? Because I don't get if it's just personal attack on my markets or if personal silly questions can not be made it should be stated clearly on Manifold - What's wrong with this market?
@oracleofosaka also if you unlist now with 12 participants you will actually make my bet profit since I bet NO - while there's still time for participants to play - I just don't understand what's wrong with my markets that other people are not doing all the time 🤷🏻♂️
@oracleofosaka It isn't personal, Gigacasting has done lots of these markets and many have been unlisted. For example see https://manifold.markets/group/dolphin-traders
which have quite a few with unlisted icon. They are considered unpredictive and Manifold don't want them overwhelming predictive claims.
I converted to no on seeing it being delisted.
@oracleofosaka As Christopher has said I unlist lots of markets like this. You just may not realise it because they are unlisted, so you only see the few that happen to get left up.
