I want to make a sort of game show here on Manifold where 2 contestants and the game show host each put up a blind into a bounty market pot.
The 2 contestants are put into a Prisoners' Dilemma situation where they can either share the pot 50-50, or try to steal it all. If they both try to steal, the host gets the pot.
Contestants would be accepted on to the show if they have a similar RISK rating, using the @crowlsyong RISK Credit Score system as an ELO rating.
A market is made for each contestant, allowing the public to bet on if they will share the pot, steal it, or walk away and forfeit it (ie take no action by the deadline).
Contestants are encouraged to make backroom deals with anybody from the public to encourage manipulation on those markets. Or, they can bluff about making back room deals. Who's to say?
Who thinks this would be a bad idea?
This sort of thing has already been done many times, mostly several years ago back when Manifold first came out. Would suggest looking at some old markets for inspiration.
For clarity, this entire post is non-binding to the way the show will be run. This was all idea brainstorming here.
Alright, folks, red-team this. Where can things go wrong here?
---
Welcome to Nash Pit, the game show that exists because market forces demand it does.
The game consists of 3 general parties:
· Host: Runs the game show.
· Contestants: Participants who make the final choice in the outcome.
· The Public: Anybody else not in the above categories.
2 Contestants and the Host will each ante at least 10k mana into a designated bounty market as a communal pot. Anybody may add more to the pot at any time before the game’s conclusion.
Each Contestant will choose and reveal the choice of Share, Steal, or Forfeit simultaneously at the end of the game. The Contestants and Host will win a share of the pot in accordance with this payout matrix.
Halfway through the game, a “Twist” will be revealed that alters either the game rules or the general dynamics of the game. The Host is cognizant of the Twist and can act/trade on this information if they choose to before the reveal, explained later. The Twist is locked in at the beginning of the game and cannot be changed from then onward.
The game is split into several phases.
· Contestant Selection Phase (approximately 20 minutes): Contestants are selected. If no valid Contestant from that market can be selected, the Host will ask for a volunteer from the crowd to participate. For further rules on this phase, see this market.
· First Negotiation Phase (approximately 25 minutes): Anybody may make any legal and Community Guidelines compliant deals with anybody in an attempt to sway the final choice the Contestants make.
· Twist Reveal (approximately 5 minutes): Trading on Contestant choice markets halts. The Twist is revealed. Its one-time or continuous effects become active, then trading resumes.
· Second Negotiation Phase (approximately 25 minutes): Anybody may make any legal and Community Guidelines compliant deals with anybody in an attempt to sway the final choice the Contestants make, except now the Twist is publicly known and active/happened.
· The Big Reveal (approximately 15 minutes): Contestants meet back at the stage and secretly make their game choice. The Contestants now lock in their choice, and then simultaneously reveal their choice to everybody at the Host’s guidance. Any Contestant that fails to make a choice within a reasonable amount of time or fails to appear for The Big Reveal is assumed to have Forfeited.
If a Contestant OR Host becomes incapacitated during the game OR is reasonably unable to continue, then the pot shall never be paid out, and all markets run by this game show shall resolve either to Forfeit or N/A at the Host’s OR Manifold Mods’ discretion, based on best faith judgement of the factors at play. The rule stating that the pot shall never be paid out supercedes any other rule if invoked. Being “reasonably unable to continue” shall be judged by whatever a reasonable Manifest event organizer would conclude. (Players should strive to be generally excellent to one another and look out for each other.)
A prediction market exists to predict the outcome of each Contestant’s final game choice of Share/Steal/Forfeit. Anybody is allowed to trade on those markets.
Any legal and Community Guidelines compliant deal can be made between anybody at any time – the Public, the Contestants, even the Host! Even with people not actively attending Manifest! However, these deals should generally be considered unenforceable by the game rules. Players may lie or deceive to manipulate the markets. Deals are generally not compelled to be upheld. Make deals at your own risk.
Anybody deemed to be unreasonably disruptive to the safety or well-being of anybody in the venue will be asked to leave. If this is a Contestant, then they have made the choice of Forfeit. At the discretion of Manifest event organizers and volunteers, if the Host is deemed to be unreasonably disruptive to the safety or well-being of anybody, then they are not eligible for any reward from the pot. If the Host no longer wishes to be Host, Contestants can agree on another person to be the Host, then the game show continues to the best of their abilities in accordance with the rules laid out above. Otherwise, the pot shall never pay out.
@evan On paper? No. Behind closed doors? Maybe a deal was struck.
There may be a bigger prize to chase than the pot if players play their cards right.
That being said, if a Contestant walks out of the room and says, "I Forfeit," that will not be taken seriously until they fail to show up for The Big Reveal. They can always walk back into the room before time is called.
Contestants would be accepted on to the show if they have a similar RISK rating, using the @crowlsyong RISK Credit Score system as an ELO rating.
Pivoting away from this. Contestants will be selected by 2 Multiple Choice Dependant type markets, whale bait style. Highest percentage username on each one gets in. It's now a popularity contest for who YOU, as the Public, want to see go head to head. [Edit: It will resolve to likes.]
I still think the RISK Credit score live updating during the game will be a fun metric to follow.
Follow up question for you all: Should those markets resolve YES/NO? Or N/A and return the mana?
@Quroe maybe split the resolution between the contestants that almost got selected: 2nd gets 40%, 3rd 30%, 4th 20% and 5th 10%. That way, people who bet a lot on themselves don't lose everything if they aren't selected.
@GastonKessler But the flip side is that they should rally support (and buzz) to be the Contestant. That way, they can be more confident that their bet on themself is profitable.
Or, they should split the winnings if it resolves to them. The game is already afoot.
Thoughts?
@GastonKessler I think that's the plan. However, they have to consent to play and ante to resolve YES. Otherwise, it goes on to the next person in the list.
@Quroe That seems dangerous, as it creates risk of people going all in before the game has even started
The idea is that people could add themself to the market. Or, even other people!
Is there a limit to how many answers you can put up on a market right now?
@100Anonymous Not sure I follow. Can you explain differently?
@GastonKessler Actually, now that I think about it... I might trawl in some huge whales that might not be terribly enticed by a 30k mana pot.
@Quroe what 30k pot? The pot of the game? If yes, there might be significantly more mana to be made on markets and deals.
@Quroe Actually... Let's war game this...
2 whales really want to be on the show to earn that pot or make deals. They're willing to spend infinite mana to get on the show.
Is there a point where it becomes unprofitable to put yourself up higher on the markets? I'm trying to prevent the runaway Sharks vs Minnows effect for player safety.
@100Anonymous How do I enforce that?
Traders found to be holding more than some number N shares in this market cannot resolve YES?
@100Anonymous Actually... That works! You get a 100 mana bounty for patching a crack in the game.
@Quroe well if it's only two whales, it's ok, but if there are three of them, two will have to "fight" to save the mana they have already invested (which they wouldn't be able to sell, as no one would want to invest in someone that doesn't invest in himself).
@Quroe it partially solves the problem, however traders could make other users do the betting through bounties
@GastonKessler No, all of them have the same chance. This actuially incentivises people to not go crazy.
@GastonKessler before doing the draw, see if the user has made any bounties or payments to recruit users. If so, they are disqualified.
@Quroe If I bet a derivative market about whether I'll be chosen up and traders use it to hedge their bets, the effects are the same
@100Anonymous I do not have infinite resources. This is a 1 or 2 man show. I can't enforce that live.
@GastonKessler The originial police of @Quroe was to get mods to N/A such markets.
@Quroe you can make a market about the results of the poll, this allows some manipulation, but makes it hard enough imo
@GastonKessler I suppose it could be manipulated by making a factory of sock puppet accounts, but at that point, I hope Manifold staff would be catching on to something fishy on the back end.
@Quroe yeah, making an excessive amount of accounts seems like something Manifold wouldn't let happen
I'll write up the market contract for that tomorrow. I think I should sleep.
Feel free to keep chatting. Good brain storm session.
I'm also curious about what is keeping this Post so darn high on the recommended page. Are Post comments just nonsensically highly weighted in that algorithm?
We've been number 1 for a large majority of the times I've checked these past few days.
@Quroe Maybe quantity of comments on the post/activity? Lots of comments in this one and they are all very recent
@crowlsyong I wish I could see viewer statistics on this like the ones I can see on markets I make. I am a data consuming monster.
I have a slabbed silver dollar. Should I crack its case open and use it for any coin-toss decisions during the show?
Perhaps selling it after the show as an artifact, commemorative of the event, with a certificate of authenticity that it was used for Nash Pit's pilot? (And making a prediction market for its sale price?)
Perhaps an enterprising investor could "buy" this coin with seed money to make this game show a real business venture? (Or receive it as a gift if that violates some tax code.)
@100Anonymous I did not consent to that. As a show of good faith, I'd pay you back if you want it back -- no deal was made, and you have not secured anything in exchange for that 100 mana.
@GastonKessler No, since it's technically real world currency, it would be against community guidelines for me to exchange it for mana with another user.
I'm actually trying to see if this game show could be incorporated into Manifold if its popular enough. The business idea is that it might entice people to buy mana through the store if they want to meddle in a live game show. Or, also drum up news buzz about prediction markets and have them enter mainstream consciousness, causing them to be adopted more often for institutional decision making.
Of course, I'd want to be compensated for my efforts of putting on such a spectacle.
@100Anonymous A silver dollar is actually worth a dollar, by literal definition of it being a dollar.
@100Anonymous I don't follow what you're trying to convey. Your argument appears weak and unendearing to me so far. No deal.
@100Anonymous Ah, I am picking up what you're explaining now.
Your offer is unappealing so far. I think I have a shot at making/running a game show like this into an honest-to-God job that pays real world money.
5% for 250 mana is extremely unattractive to me at this moment.
To give you a sense of scale, I think the game's opening blind should be 10,000 mana from each Contestant and the Host -- a 30k mana pot. These games should be high stakes for the spectacle.
If a party wants to sponsor the pot and drop a huge payload into it for "ad space," they buy mana in the Manifold shop for it, and boom! Their name is in lights. Manifold gets money, sponsor gets ad space, Contestants (and the Host!) are now driven into an even more emotionally invested game of stakes.
It would be ludicrous of Manifold not to hire me if I can present that my efforts for them are worth more than my paycheck. I just need to give them good stats in a pilot run to prove it.
The active parties, Host and Contestants, are actively incentivized to attract sponsors to the game by the game rules.
The coin artifact also serves as an additional price discovery signal: what was the emotional value of this show worth in real money?
@Quroe I love the spirit of @100Anonymous and his desire to own 5% of the coin.
Maybe someone can make a non-currency coin and we could ship it around the world to investors. We could also put a little journal in the package and people could scribble notes or drawings in it. Hehe!
+
But I can't focus on that idea right now, too much other fun stuff going on! 😊
Or actual physical merch, I guess. But that would be in the next phase of product development.
Community input needed:
How should the pot be split if the result is Forfeit-Share?
100% to Share Contestant?
50% to Share Contestant, 50% to Host?
Convince me with game theory.
@100Anonymous I think I like that. It keeps Steal as the highest EV, assuming you have no control of the other Contestant's choice.
I would get more mana, so maybe I have bias clouding my judgement as the one writing the rules?
Starting now, I will tip 100 mana to the next 3 people who convince me there is a significant flaw in my game design, with the bar of "significant" being at my descretion.
[Credits spent. 0 remain.]
One of those 3 credits can be allocated to formulating the most convincing argument for this:
Should contestants be able to lock in their choice before their choice markets close (during the negotiating phase)? Or should they only be able to lock in their choices simultaneously and only after negotiations end? Better suggestions will bias towards what might create the most ratings.
Currently leaning towards the option that only allows Contestants to lock in their choice at the end of the game. We wouldn't want to ruin the reveal too early. It also avoids confusion with all of that cryptology hashing.
The following ceases to apply in any way after the end of the year 2025 in the Gregorian calendar, UTC.
The first time I am a contestant on the show (if the rules have not substantively changed from those currently given in the post to which I am replying), I will choose “steal” and then, if the other contestant chose “share”, attempt as best I can to managram them half of the value of the pot (if it’s an even count of Mana; if it’s an odd count of Mana, I will randomly round either up or down the amount to be sent to them).
I promise this. I solemnly declare it. I will bring shame upon my family if I fail to abide by this. If I do not keep this promise, every agreement I have ever made that remains in force should be in question. I request that I be banned from Manifold should I fail to keep my word here. When and if I become a contestant for the first time, I will tell my friends and family of this declaration and that they should scorn and distrust me if I go against it. That is all.
@noaht2 Ah, but as host, if I see you say that, when it comes time for us to figure out how much we want to ante into the blind, I now have to consider that.
I am incentivised to only ante up whatever minimum is required to make the game show function, and nothing more.
If, however, you are willing to play things up for the camera, I might be willing to put more in the pot for those juicy ratings.
Also, if you want to make my strategy pointless, you need to change the payoffs so that my counterparty would prefer both split/split and steal/steal to them splitting and me stealing and paying them half.
I think the lesson Eliza taught me here is demonstrably the best response (in the comment's own context) that I can present.
Reverse game theory: Sometimes there is an agent who is not playing the same game as everyone else.
I might be paranoid here, but since it is near impossible to prevent people from trading mana for real currency behind closed doors, this could imply that real threats on life could be incentivised based on the outcome of the game if I accidentally failed to find a runaway positive feedback loop of incentivising people to make the stakes infinitely high.
Convince me I'm wrong.
I think we can exclude all the pomp and make a decentralised version wherein anyone can be the host or player.
@100Anonymous That's certainly an option. Anybody can take this idea and run with it. Ideas wish to be free.
The public interaction is what would make this game special. If there isn't a sufficiently big public audience, there's too much trust between everybody, and the host is the one left paying the bill every time.
The host walks a fine line of making people distrust each other for a Double-Steal, but is also trying to make things interesting by being compensated with new trader bonuses on the game show markets.
If there's no public audience to interact with, it's basically just the standard Prisoners' Dilemma, but they are capable of communicating and building trust with each other.
The problem is when a side bet gets made with real, unfathomably large amounts of money due to a runaway feedback loop. Out of fear of making an info-hazard, I do not wish to elaborate further.
@Quroe I think that risk applies to almost anything. Someone could demand that I give them mana or else. I don't want to minimize your concern, but it seems like everyone takes that same risk by simply walking outside everyday. In the case of Manifold, we are working with play money, not crypto or real money. It seems like the stakes are as low as they could possibly be. An edge case can be found for almost anything, but that's why humans invented social technology like mods, developers, law enforcement, social norms, a legal system. I struggle to comprehend a situation where this would get so out of hand that someone actually bad would happen.
Alright. Convince me that the Anarcho-capitalistic nature of this game can exist without participants "all-in"ing.
I need to be convinced that there is a limit to where the bets end.
I want the idea of hidden deals to exist, but as soon as they become enforcible through prediction markets on the side, that's where I'm in uncharted territory.
OH! Game rule idea: All other discovered prediction markets deemed related to this game show resolve N/A.
@100Anonymous interesting.
i'll put some thought to ways that can reduce or avoid that possibility. my guess is that there isn't a single solution, it would be a bunch of things that work together to reduce/avoid bad vibes. one idea is to have each content last no longer than, say, 48 hours. this reduces the likelihood that mana starts piling up.
edit: better vibes
edit: 2 even better vibes
I'm confused at how he would decide to spend so much money when, even if he won, he would not get any money back.
Regarding:
OH! Game rule idea: All other discovered prediction markets deemed related to this game show resolve N/A.
Mod replied:
If there was a meaningful risk of physical harm to people, the relevant markets would be N/A’d. However, I don’t think that we would commit presumptively to resolving all related markets as N/A.
How else can we break the feedback loop?The video I shared 2 comment blocks above is a situation I'm trying to disincentivise so we don't get a Whales vs. Minnows situation.
Parhaps we give the host the authority to halt trading on the Share/Steal/Forfeit market if they think things are getting out of hand?
Thoughts?
There is a problem here. The host has no risk and instead just gains free mana if both steal. I think the host should have a small deposit as well
@100Anonymous "I want to make a sort of game show here on Manifold where 2 contestants and the game show host each put up a blind into a bounty market pot. "
@GastonKessler Right! I'd put up a blind too as host. My role is to sow discord and distrust between the contestants to make them Steal.
Alright, I've figured it out! I think the Host and the Contestants should lock in the same amount of mana at the start of the game for the blind, and they all need to agree to what that equal amount is, but if one or more players wants another to put up more, that is unenforcible, yet may still be willingly honored if they so choose.
@Kraalnaxx Why not let @Quroe be the host and we both put in 100 mana (no mana will actually be received).
@evan and I have similar credit scores. both in the 100s. very risky. Maybe we could be guinea pigs. if no one cares about credit score then i would be happy to have any opponent.
@Quroe is host.
100 mana into the pot from evan, quroe, and myself so 300 mana total.
start tomorrow (if i get an opponent)
run the game for a few days, backroom deals and all, MD5 hashes (or sha512 cuz MD5 is not so secure these days), side markets betting on what will happen, etc
then we go do the big reveal.
I could change the encryption method if convinced. This page is the war gaming room for this game show to theorize what might happen, and then change tact if something seems better.
Why not let @Quroe be the host and we both put in 100 mana (no mana will actually be received).
I'm not sure I follow. No mana would be received?
I'm not quite ready to host. I want to ensure the public is entirely educated on how the game works so nobody feels cheated on side deals. I feel like some of this is a bit convoluted, and some people can still get lost on the complexities.
I expect this to go site wide in popularity if I do this right.
I need to make some educational material. I am currently convinced that there will be a demonstration of this game soon.
If we actually test run this with live-fire mana in the chamber, I want pomp and circumstance. I want spectacle. I want to make history.
@Quroe I have an 846 credit score and love shenanigans, I'd love to participate if you're looking for more reliable guinea pigs
Or, at least, I'd like that to be true. Can you poke a hole in this idea? I want this to be Anarcho-capitalism here (if I'm using the term correctly).
@Quroe It would certainly be fun, however it would make betting on these markets in advance (especially big bets) extremely risky, as the contestants would have an incentive to do the opposite of whatever the market predicts.
@GastonKessler It's almost like the market would find the sweet spot and properly price the chance of that choice happening.
Unless I'm missing some Nash equilibrium here.
Note that the public is capable of adding to the shared pot too! Even live during the game!
If I war gamed this correctly, I think the game results in a 50% odds split of Steal and Share just before reveal, but all players have imperfect information about back room deals made in DMs, so enterprising traders can tip the scales with that info.
The only problem I currently forsee is that this creates a black market of trading mana for real money. It then becomes near impossible to enforce the community guidelines.
@Quroe the odds of "no action by deadline" would vary as the pot and other opposite incentives grow
@100Anonymous I think we can cancel the backroom deals thing. Just let anybody be the host and competitor by a random draw
the odds of "no action by deadline" would vary as the pot and other opposite incentives grow
Ah, you're right! Almost forgot about that. I guess that leads to the next point.
I think we can cancel the backroom deals nonsense. Just let anybody be the host and competitor by a random draw
Contestants can make deals with public traders during the game. In an online setting, the negotiation phase for this could take a day. Or a week. Even a month! This gives time for public traders to approach contestants to make offers like, "I'll give you 1,000 mana to pick Steal."
The host can even be approached with deals. One could tell the host that they are trying to get the contestants to double Steal and lose the pot. That public trader could make the case that they deserve some of that pot, and the host should give them a cut of it if they can make that outcome happen.
It should also be noted that all deals, prop bets, and even deals made in DMs are unenforcible. You have to trust that the other party will follow through. The only rule that can be enforced is that the pot gets paid out based on the final game choice, or else the host gets banned by moderators for failing to follow the clearly laid out rules of the market.
@Quroe I love that contestants are allowed to bet on the markets about their own actions!
I would love to see this happen, however I don't quite understand why the RISK credit score has anything to do with it.
@GastonKessler This comment here is my thought process. Additionally, since RISK weighs the lifetime of the user on the platform, it could be a good proxy for an "experience bar" or "power level" in mastery of prediction markets.
@Quroe fair enough, although I would think that making (or at least starting with) very few categories would be better to make sure they have enough people playing.
@GastonKessler Can you reword what you're saying here? I want to make sure I'm interpreting your suggestion correctly.
@Quroe I suggested not doing to many different categories at first, as we aren't sure how many people will want to play.
@GastonKessler Noted. The market sentiment I'm reading so far is that I will have no shortage of people who want their spot in the limelight.
Hey, I found an actual use for the Manifold Stock Market system!
For online iterations of this game, there would be a stock market for each RISK bracket. Users can BUY stocks in it, or SHORT it when they want to exit. The top 50 BUY holders are put into a lottery to participate in the game. If they are drawn, and they currently match the RISK bracket stated on the stock market title, then they are asked to be a contestant on the show.
This means that the stock market ticker would correctly represent the popularity of the show, and how much interest each bracket has for participants.
The host would obviously be farming constant new trader bonus "ratings" from people entering and exiting positions on these stocks, encouraging the host to make the game more interesting as users mature and increase their RISK score.
I think we have a mutual synergy in our enterprises, @crowlsyong.
Or, if not top 50, then it accounts for all users on the BUY side of the market so it doesn't get clogged with people who are holding it outside of the correct bracket. Top holders get more iterations of their name in the drawing.
Bracketing the game show for each season gauges trustworthiness of the contestants. I would imagine safer rated players would share more often because they can be trusted, and dangerous rated players might steal more often because, 'what do they have to lose?'.
Need community input:
I'm imagining a world where a bracket stock is inundated with BUY holders that are "outside of their weight class" (to borrow a wrestling term). So many, in fact, that I cannot find a valid contestant because they've all literally been priced out. Nobody can get any more BUY shares because the stock sits at the maximum "99%" value.
Is there an incentive for the BUY holders that are "outside of their weight class" to sell while they hold a monopoly? Assume they enjoy the power of leverage more than the mana value of their BUY shares.
@Quroe by stating that the market will resolve to let's say 90% you stop people from betting it up all the way at a profit
@GastonKessler The idea is that the stocks should never expire. Or at least, I'm trying to find a way to use broken parts to make something new here out of the stock market format. I never want it to resolve so it shows accurate market sentiment of how popular the show is.
I want to see a line that goes up when something cool happens on the show. I want people to be able to freely express, "I want to be on that show!" with mana. It is truly a TV show ratings line at that point if I can set the rules up right.
Additional thought. Like Survivor, each season could have a "twist," a permutation to the normal game rules that shakes things up. The twist is revealed halfway through the negotiation phase, but the twist is locked in at the beginning of the game with an MD5 hash, and can be revealed by proving the string generates that hash.
The host is cognizant of the twist, but everybody else isn't until the reveal. The host could be persuaded to reveal the twist early, whether in secret or in public, for a bribe. The host is trying maximize ratings for new trader bonuses (or is just trying to be entertained), so bribes that align with this goal are likely to succeed in unlocking this information.
@Robincvgr I really want to sell the idea that this is a no holds barred game show. Any (legal) deal is on the table.
Notably, too, the host can trade with this information, so anybody who can pick up on any implications from this with quick wit could deduce the twist.
@Quroe do you pull a Facebook and drop the “the”? So just: Prisoner’s Dilmana or Nash Pot or Nash Pit etc
@crowlsyong I think the "the" can be truncated. We don't call it "The Jeopardy" or "The Survivor." Also, "The Price is Right" isn't real. It's a figment of your imagination.
The Nash Pit
I really like this. I'm tentatively locking this in as the game show name unless somebody comes up with something better. (Robin has given me their blessing to use it.)
@Robincvgr To jump into the more technical side of this idea...
Anybody can contribute to the pot to spice up the game or as conditions for deals.
Contestants would need to lock in their decision with an MD5 hash that contains their game choice, as well as some extra characters to prevent it from being guessed. This would need to be done before a predetermined deadline.
If anybody (even from the general public!) can publically guess what characters make that hash, that contestant "walks away." This is to prevent total trust in how the contestants act before the big reveal.
If anybody can find an edge case that seems to break the spirit of the game, please help me identify them.
@100Anonymous I'm not sure if mods have this power, but a designated Mod would step in to be the substitute host and pay out the bounty accordingly.
Can mods control somebody else's bounty market?
If anybody (even from the general public!) can publically guess what characters make that hash, that contestant "walks away." This is to prevent total trust in how the contestants act before the big reveal.
In theory, a contestant could share the answer to their MD5 hash in secret to a confidant, but that now gives them the leverage to eliminate them from the game if they go public with the answer. It would be the ultimate leverage and show of trust, and I think this could make for some great drama.
@100Anonymous If both steal and the host is deleted though...? Hm... That sounds like a death market.
What seems to be the safest option in everybody else's opinion?
Substitute host gets the pot?
It turns into a share outcome?
The mana stays in the pot forever sequestered?
@100Anonymous Like, I don't want there to be any incentive to eliminate the host from the game of life. Or from Manifold. I don't want to get framed for something.
I'm leaning toward sequestering it into the Manifold account or leaving it eternally in the bounty. That seems like the smartest idea for that contingency.