@predyx_markets Given this market is only ~1 day old, if you want to N/A it and then re-create the market with the correct information, I think that would be okay. Some of the traders may be upset to see their bets canceled so you would need to weigh that against whatever harm was caused by the misinterpretation of the way the market works.

If you confirm you want to N/A it, I can mark any specific answer or the entire slate as N/A in this situation. It does look like you have general support from multiple participants to do this -- and they would probably trade on a re-created version since they seem to be interested in the subject.

@Eliza I will let the existing traders vote for what is best? Traders please comment your opinion.

@predyx_markets also I think only one person got impacted with this. I’m willing to compensate the losses that have been incurred.

@predyx_markets I vote for just N/Aing and recreating since I still have the biggest position in 6 out of 8 of the markets, so the impact on others is comparatively small, and also since the market is pretty new so not a lot of traders would be impacted (and some of the others, like Daniel Tello, were also betting on the wrong information at the start)

@spiderduckpig OK cool. @Eliza Please N/A it. Do I have to do anything after that?

@predyx_markets You can re-create the market with the correct information and post about it here so everyone knows where to look.

shouldn't 70k, 80k and such be 100%? or, are those options asking if the price will fall to those levels? in that case, shouldn't the criteria be the low of any candlestick before the deadline for those lower options?

@predyx_markets

The price considered will be the highest value reached during the period between the day of market creation and March 31, 2025 (UTC).

By this criteria, immediately at market creation there's already 3 options (70k, 80k, 90k) that would resolve YES.

@predyx_markets Since you gave a misleading confirmation to @spiderduckpig and they bet based on that wrong info, I'd suggest you N/A and try it again with clear logic and criteria from the start.

@deagol Not sure what you mean by wrong info. Not sure how should I explain set markets.

@deagol Maybe just bring in a moderator to explain. The way I know, the set markets work is they can be resolved individually. So if Bitcoin hit 110K tomorrow, then 110k will resolve to YES tomorrow. After a week, bitcoin hits tp 120k, then 120k will resolve to YES . After few days Bitcoin hits 90k, then the 90k resolves to YES. Where is the confusion here?

@predyx_markets

Not sure what you mean by wrong info.

They asked if they were mutually exclusive, you replied yes. They are not, these are independent options.

@predyx_markets I understand how it works, but you mislead someone else by confirming their misinterpretation as mutually exclusive, and they sensibly bet them all down to satisfy this.

@deagol I guess I misunderstood the word "mutually exclusive vs mutually inclusive" I'm not a mathematician.

@predyx_markets Neither am I, nor most here. Yet I'm pretty sure "mutually inclusive" isn't a thing, at least doesn't logically imply "independent".

Anyway, how do the lower options work given the criteria is "the highest Bitcoin price recorded by or before March 31, 2025" ?

@predyx_markets @mods Please help!

@deagol This is a replica market of https://polymarket.com/event/what-price-will-bitcoin-hit-by-march-31?tid=1734320961549

@predyx_markets I get it, but then the lower options must have different criteria than stated in the description (i.e. the lowest price instead of the highest).

@deagol Well, please be my guest and change the resolution criteria. I think anyone can edit it.

@predyx_markets only the market creator and mods can (thankfully)

@deagol Ok, please give me the content and I will edit it accordingly.

@predyx_markets I'd let the mods deal with it, I suspect they may cancel given @spiderduckpig bad bets based on your comment and description update.

@deagol I truly hope so.