Why was Krantz banned?

It's a good question. I guess the alternative is to pay out everyone's cost basis at resolution. But that would create a situation where selling your shares immediately before the N/A could change your profit/loss significantly. It would also mean that as N/A looks more likely people would value their shares very differently depending on what price they bought them at. There might be other issues.

You could resolve the market to a fair intermediate value, for instance pay out 0.5 to yes and no shares. I feel like there are some N/A resolutions that should have been partial payouts instead. That particular market looks complicated and subjective, so it might be hard to agree on a fair price.

@travis In this case, the N/A was purely because the user left the site. It wasn't a question of a technicality, or unexpected real-world event outside the market's parameters.

Just seems really odd to claw back months-old profit, it's counter-intuitive to how any other market in the world works, you know?

@ChurlishGambit Well the N/A is a lot easier with play money because it's not a big deal if you can't recover all the claw backs. I think a real money platform would not be able to offer a market like that at all. I sort of agree that N/A doesn't make sense for it, but I don't see a better alternative. I tried reading it, but I'm struggling to understand what that market is asking.

@travis But why not just, leave all closed transactions closed, & refund current holders? Why claw anything back at all? As you say, it's play money—why not just let the "central bank" eat any "loss" from this very rare situation?:

@ChurlishGambit Actually I don't think there would be any central bank loss, so it's an interesting idea. I think this is what happens when sportsbooks use void (push). You can often cash out a sportsbook wager early. I've always assumed those cash outs are final, so if they end up grading it void, it wouldn't affect your profit.

@travis It has to be final, because you can literally cash out. The bookie's not gonna come for your cash...not the legal ones, anyway ;)

This is normal. The point of N/A is to essentially revert all trades as if they never happened. If you kept your profit, another user would have to lose it, which isn't fair if the market is unfair or invalid.

I don't know about this specific market though and whether or not N/A was the right choice.

@xjp I hate that. This was made N/A because the user deleted their account. I don't understand why my smart trading was unraveled because they didn't want to be here anymore.

@ChurlishGambit I agree, it doesn’t seem fair in this particular case. I wonder why mods didn’t wait and let the market resolve as normal. You can definitely petition them to change it.

@xjp It's a subjective market, so it can't be resolved without the maker's opinion. But stealing users' profits back, after months, seems like the worst possible resolution. The mods, predictably, do not care

@ChurlishGambit If the market is subjective then unfortunately this is the correct outcome. In order for you to keep your profit other users would have to lose mana, which isn't fair if the market can't be legitimately resolved. I think if you put yourself in the shoes of someone on the other side of that trade you would probably agree.