Am I missing something or is it impossible for June to resolve No? Why are people betting No?

@AndrewHebb it'll resolve N/A, possibly after June leagues closes. Any temporary profits/losses may or may not count for June league.

i guess it's because it resolves N/A, but that's essentially immobilizing money

@Chimpy Yes immobilised mana but if you have a spare 500,000 mana ...
Doesn't help for all time profits if it is NA'd but what about monthly leagues?
No risk to funds and those betting yes only have to bet small amounts for large gains. If it gets resolved in same month ah well no gain or loss but if resolved after June market ends then it could be league gain for no mana risked. So if there is chance of delayed NA then all options should adjust to 50% ?

@Chimpy do you realize that betting NO on June (which still has 3 days left, granted it's nearly impossible) is equivalent to betting YES on all the other previous options which are truly impossible?

@deagol yeah

@Chimpy ah ok i thought you were questioning my YES June bets and limits, but actually you were wondering about the YES on past months by others. Yeah, as @ChristopherRandles said this is just leagues shenanigans by now.

@deagol ahh, ok. Cool, :)

why are people betting yes... it's just no possible at this point

@predyx_markets could you resolve it no instead of N/A?

@Chimpy because then the choices can be balanced

@Chimpy MKT creator already said it would be N/A, would be wrong to do otherwise

@Chimpy Also it's impossible.

@predyx_markets could you resolve it no instead

Admit some feelings of validation at seeing someone new share my same confusion and frustration every month or so haha

Here's a better market, couldn't do it on date market, so had to use range/multi-option market.

Clearly June should resolve to No if Bitcoin does not reach 150k in that month.
Whether the entire market resolves to NA seems independent of that.

@ODU9Psu they are not independent, it's dependent multiple choice where one answer must resolve YES and all others NO (or N/A all of them)

@deagol
The market should have been dissolved long ago instead of letting it sit and attract more people with its ambiguities.
By your interpretation, the NO clause of June 2026 has ZERO value to bet on -- because it is an impossible occurrence to play out.
The whole market is mis-designed and should have been dissolved when that was realized. Its design assumed that Bitcoin would hit 150k and the absence of that breaks it.
I bet on this a few days after joining, and placed over half of my starter capital into it, where it has been trapped for a month+

@ODU9Psu your bet was made on May 31, but the title had been fixed and the question clarified without any ambiguity 3 months earlier, on March 3.

You can't "dissolve" it when there's still any chance that it happens (whether 6 months, 1 month, or 1 day, still >0% chance). Plenty of even lower prob markets, can't resolve them early to free up capital locked up by mistake. That's not how prediction markets work.

@deagol Yes, as I said, I placed the bet like 2 or 3 days into joining this place. I did not expect markets to be broken and I did not read the line about what happens if bitcoin doesn't reach 150k -- as I assumed that it wouldn't and bet accordingly.

A perfectly fine way to have solved the issue of 'Bitcoin never reaches 150k" would have been to treat each month as independent yes/no question of whether bitcoin was over 150k that month. That wouldn't have required the complete capitulation and stuck assets for all the people in the tar trap it became.

@ODU9Psu

A perfectly fine way to have solved the issue of 'Bitcoin never reaches 150k" would have been to treat each month as independent yes/no question

The problem is not that it's dependent, but that not all possible outcomes are covered (which is a must for dependent MC). Making it as a set (independent MC) is more flexible but introduces error in that the sum of all answers always tends to be far off <>100% which then must be arbed out manually.

So I've always interpreted this and always bet on it as it really was, a conditional: In which month, given it gets there by June 2026? That kind of market is a bit dissatisfying when NA'ed but still makes perfect sense.

It's a flaw in the date market creation interface not the creator's fault. A fix was proposed and discussed early on and continuously in comments, and creator went ahead and created a fixed version 10 months ago (but still for 2026 way back when it was still reasonable for this year), and recently another for the future (which still has issues imo). Of course no one's betting in either of those because Manifold just loves ambiguous/flawed/controversial/drama markets. Or risk-free whalebait markets, which is what this has become.

@ODU9Psu

A perfectly fine way to have solved the issue

Just to reiterate, this was done, fixed in another market, as this one was impossible to fix (other than by accepting it could N/A).

@deagol I see nothing on the page describing it as a 'dependent MC'.
When I joined in, there was only the one month to go, so I just bet on that month...
I didn't look at comments before betting.

My complaint is really that it was left open and bettable, and I know that I wasn't the only person that joined after it was known to be broken. The person running it should have made it extremely clear in the initial text or just closed it up.

I mean really, it was left with people moving bets on past months in the last days... that makes zero sense.

Broken markets should be taken down.

@ODU9Psu bro when you bet it was extremely clear in the TITLE, come on. And the text in the description has it since day 3 almost a year ago:

If Bitcoin does not hit $150K during this time, the market resolves “N/A.”

Here's the market type info: