Team Whale gets 1 point for each 10,000 YES shares they collectively hold.
Team Minnow gets 1 point for each trader holding NO shares.
The team with the most points at close wins.
The market stops normal trading activity at 18:30 Pacific time on April 24th. At this time, it enters "pseudorandom close mode", where it closes as soon as a bitcoin block is mined with a hash that ends in "00". (With 144 blocks per day and hexidecimal hashes, this means it'll likely resolve within 2 days.) I probably won't be online at the exact time the block is mined, so I'll just resolve the market whenever I get back and see that this has occurred. (It'll resolve based on the state it was in at the time the block was mined; any new investements from team Whale or new traders on Team Minnow afterwards won't count.) The information source on bitcoin hashes and mining times we'll use is here.
All NO shareholders count towards team minnow's points, except:
Any account that has declared itself to be an alt, and is not a bot account.
Accounts that have been banned from Manifold.
A "bot account" refers to any account with the "bot" tag that is clearly not human-controlled and has a good reason to exist as a separate account. (e.g. @acc and @Botlab)
If anyone is suspicious that an account may be an undeclared alt being used to unfairly inflate team minnow's points, (which is a violation of Manifold's community guidelines), they should report that account to Manifold using the "report" button on that account's profile page. Market resolution may be delayed for up to a month after close to allow Manifold to investigate these reports.
The resolution council may choose to disqualify some suspected alt accounts, even if Manifold has not banned them.
Note that I phrased the market description in terms of "points" to make it more intuitive, but the title is the technically correct resolution. i.e. Team Whale can get fractional points, and they'll win a tie. (But a tie is extremely unlikely, since buying just 1 more share can break the tie.)
Given the disagreements and ambiguity about this market's close date and resolution criteria, and the fact that I'm both the market creator and one of its largest shareholders, I have delegated its management to @jack, @Conflux, and @MartinRandall. They have final say over all descisions, and it's effectively "their market".
Related questions
🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ665,792 | |
| 2 | Ṁ597,543 | |
| 3 | Ṁ261,980 | |
| 4 | Ṁ218,705 | |
| 5 | Ṁ211,621 |
This market made it to a post by Scott Alexander: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/mantic-monday-52223
Ok, I believe this is the final list of everyone I owe mana to for selling out of their NO position. (It includes all the mooks since I was too lazy to filter those out. They obviously don't get a payout.) If you're on this list, (or aren't on this list and believe you should be), please PM me on Discord so I can send you your manalink. My Discord ID is IsaacKing#7376.
AK: M$1667
Ben Mc Gloin: M$527
Primer: M$992
Bruno Ursino: M$1144
Neon Nuke: M$502
Alt102938: M$550
Humble Farmer: M$793
Williams Keller: M$503
Mohammad Bin faysal: M$503
Carson Gale: M$502
Nadja_L: M$502
Tоm: M$502
Tassilo Neubauer: M$502
Rik Kolin: M$502
Sam Sarjeant: M$517
aggreeegator: M$513
Kongo Landwalker: M$513
Michael: M$510
Cris: M$502
James Lee: M$558
Berg: M$507
Carla Calero: M$529
EDESIRI SHANOMI: M$528
Gabriel Flores: M$528
Smartlance Agency: M$528
Danielka Espinoza: M$528
Lisa Marsh: M$527
Hazel Vivas: M$526
Scott Lawrence: M$526
Akharume Ak Faruk: M$526
JGY: M$526
Great Enulee: M$526
Jeleelat Bolaji: M$526
Ayomide Olabode: M$525
Dah Blakk: M$525
Safurat Bamigbade: M$525
Adeola Owolabi: M$525
CHIMEZIE ANIH: M$525
Hollahmielekan Aliu: M$525
Adelani Ayobami: M$524
Janjan Alo Cabanlit: M$523
Heis Raphxn: M$523
Samuel Christianah: M$523
Denîse Guevara: M$530
johnlee jumaoas: M$523
Shiena Ilagan Omboy: M$522
Ayiesha Marie: M$522
Adebisi Basirat: M$522
Blessing Eguh: M$522
Tonie Labutap: M$522
Ola Smart: M$522
Hikaru Montejo Kojo: M$522
Kelvin Isibor: M$522
Mario Vallejo: M$528
Jay Jumao-as: M$521
Nina Tanjay: M$521
Paolo Labutap: M$521
Botratombo Fanambinantsoa Anth: M$521
Tricia De Luna: M$521
Kit Ochea Batiquin: M$521
Marie Vanessa Tsarazafy: M$521
Julita Labutap: M$521
Anna Arisoa: M$521
Abubakar Joyia: M$520
Mürinö Yöng: M$520
Arts Dan: M$520
Muhammad Imran Malik: M$520
Muhammad Ahmad: M$520
Omorodion Osas: M$520
Azhar Farooq: M$520
Zion Drake Ecoy: M$520
Mudassir Ali Kulachi: M$520
samarelmansy: M$520
Abubakar Uzair: M$520
SHANOMI PEACE: M$520
Ikhide Helen: M$520
Khurram Rashee: M$520
A Ashfaq: M$520
Isaac Zicko Anthony: M$520
Luke Aigbe: M$520
Russel Resubal: M$520
Mohsin Khan Joyia: M$520
Dilawar Khan Abbasi: M$520
Usama Jabbar: M$520
Nourwalid: M$520
Ch Ùsàma Numberdaar: M$520
Kashif Khan: M$520
Mohsin Ali: M$520
Rashid Khan: M$520
Hasino Aliyu: M$520
irakli abuashvili: M$520
Muhammad Mughees Farhan: M$520
Jun Resubal Jr: M$520
Arman Ray Nisay: M$520
Abdelrahman salim: M$520
Muhammad Tayab: M$520
Usman Farid: M$520
Ubaid Tariq: M$520
Muhammad Umar Alam: M$520
Muhammad Ali CH: M$520
Sajid Karim: M$520
Junaid Iftikhar: M$520
M Ahmad: M$520
Shah Zaib Rafi: M$519
Glory Ofure Akao: M$519
Bolaji Samuel Abiodun: M$519
Fahim Shahzad: M$519
M Shahzad M Riaz: M$519
Muhammad Umer Ch: M$519
Rana Zubair: M$525
AOun Niaz: M$519
Azam Sandhu: M$519
Rehan Yousaf: M$519
Adnan Ali: M$519
Saeed Anwar Dawar: M$519
Numan Nomi: M$519
Christopher Romero: M$519
Muhammad Zubair: M$519
Melvin Sequeira: M$518
Itz Joezy Eyo: M$523
Akinloye Khadijat: M$523
Idagu Janet: M$521
Eneh Doris: M$522
Kerby Daniel: M$522
Akintunde Bankole: M$522
Edel Jhonrex Santino Sarzuelo: M$522
Kathalella Montiel: M$516
Ramon Galeano: M$516
Key Castillo: M$516
Urakih Wang: M$520
Muhammad Bilal Joyia: M$520
Romina Bemarina: M$520
Gladys Tamayo Resubal: M$520
Ahmad Bilal: M$520
Waqas Ahmad: M$520
Rana Mujahid Hussain: M$520
Muhammad Shahid: M$520
M Wisaal Yar: M$519
M Ayoob khan: M$519
Muhammad Akhtar: M$519
Fidelis Osi Aliu: M$519
Asad Shirazi: M$519
aime anne resubal nisay (aime): M$519
Rose Rodríguez: M$514
Nino Kapanadze: M$514
Muhammad Hanzla: M$519
Mariam Kapanadze: M$514
Ano Khazhomia: M$514
Marita Demetrashvili: M$514
Joseling Silva: M$515
Tee King: M$556
Shanomi Emmanuel: M$553
Young Gailean: M$1341
duck_master: M$541
Saif Ullah: M$540
Farukh Javed: M$540
joseph odhiambo: M$540
Jonathan Emode: M$539
Higgs Casey: M$539
Hal Davies: M$564
Godswill Ukeagbu Uche: M$539
Festus Osasenaga: M$538
Amayogbe Ernest: M$538
Fátima Pérez Duarte: M$549
Ali Hassan: M$549
Boris Montenegro: M$530
Jamaica Jumao-as: M$540
Sarah Banzon Bartolome: M$539
Innocent: M$539
M Hassan Tariq: M$539
Imran Mughal: M$539
Alejandra Ferrufino: M$538
Nderitu Muya: M$561
Muhammad Touqeer: M$560
Hafiz Syed Yahya Abid: M$560
Liss Sequeira: M$559
Patrick Ani: M$575
Ali Haider: M$572
Isaac Butcher: M$578
zwee: M$597
Dach: M$597
Mf-info Antalaha: M$561
aghu: M$636
Cristhiam Lazo: M$548
T: M$583
Sayad Tarif Hasan: M$605
E. G.: M$667
Chinmay: M$628
Reed Donner: M$829
Kyle Gian: M$605
Betty Nyanchama: M$625
J: M$777
Aaron Williams: M$726
Snowy Hill: M$657
Robert Cousineau: M$1500
Juan Gil: M$722
Nuno Balbona: M$701
Sakib Ali: M$620
Zidny Rayhan Aleen: M$644
Sheikh Shamim: M$628
ALC234: M$612
Aminu Mariam: M$715
Joampry Digitals: M$864
ItzNetwork: M$1544
PersonMan: M$1400
Jonah Krompart: M$1168
AJ JOAMPRY: M$963
Donald: M$783
Pickle: M$2150
Arun Johnson: M$1108
Amelia: M$1496
Kola Abe: M$1120
Christin Abt: M$1832
John Thomas: M$1656
cloe: M$1833
trooper: M$2338
@MayMeta If you had bothered to read the second sentence of the comment you're responding to, you would know the answer to that.
Today in between my breaks, I hacked together this quick narration based on @Conflux's summary below of the Whales vs Minnows market, with ChatGPT, midjourney, and voice cloning adding to the creativity.
In the voice of David Attenborough
To resolve this market (https://manifold.markets/chilli/will-the-whales-vs-minnows-market-b).
Will the "Whales vs. Minnows" market be good for Manifold?
@chilli Hm, my first instinct was to vote No because of the real-world harm that the market did, but given that you specifically asked about whether it would be good for Manifold, I don't think Isaac's loss of RL cash falls under the scope of the question. For the same reason, charitable donations don't fall under its scope as a potential good done by the market. So, I came up with a list of pros and cons that are in scope.
Pros:
Brought new people to Manifold
Caused Manifold to implement new policies about alts, and probably some new policies to prevent excessive spending on whalebait markets, and make the site more prediction-focused rather than gambling focused.
It was fun for plenty of users, including a lot of the new users.
Way more people had profits than losses, so all the profiteers have that as a benefit.
It made money for Manifold (technically good for Manifold, even if the money was made in a bad way).
Cons:
One of Manifold's most prolific creators can't make markets anymore because he has a negative balance (though I think he has a plan to come back).
All the drama made Manifold less fun for some users, and some might be reluctant to keep using Manifold because of the drama.
Makes Manifold seem less focused on actual prediction when this and "The Market" are the biggest events of 2023
The harm caused by this market may be outside the scope of the question, but any bad publicity it causes for Manifold is definitely in-scope.
Some of the pros could actually be bad (e.g., some of the new users come from toxic places online and could make the site worse; new policies might make the site less fun).
@JosephNoonan Some of the cons could be good. Manifold learned that fun markets are catnip to current users and should consider how to balance those with prediction. Drama is fun, all publicity is good publicity, and so on.
@ElmerFudd Yeah, similarly to how I mentioned that some of the pros can be bad, most of the things I listed aren't totally clear cut as all good or all bad
@JosephNoonan Con: A regulatory agency might see the big loss as evidence that Manifold is more like a gambling site or quasi-securities market than it purports to be. (Definitely not legal advice, but I think refunding most of Issac's cash was a wise move from a risk-management perspective. Without conducting further research and examining possible precedent, I'd guess Manifold is in a gray area and is best served by erring on the side of appearing responsible.)
@chilli Experience is the best teacher, not the kindest.
I think there's lots to learn for Manifold devs and the Manifold community, but we're not as well placed to benefit from it as I'd like.
The devs learned some things about handling downsides but they're still trying to get market fit and implement core features (good multiple response markets please!) and pivoting to fix some of these downsides now is badly timed.
The community learned some things but we're not empowered to use that - we don't have community moderation tools, don't have a wiki, don't have good market-tagging tools, etc.
@MartinRandall Hm, that's a good point. Even if the new rules themselves are good, they could be a net detriment if they delay the development of other features.
Con: the economy was screwed up. A lot of people made lots of mana but the value of the redistribution is questionable
Con: manifold refused to step in and fix the mess, creating an unfortunate precedent. You could say this is a pro, but in my opinion for a young community it is important to set guidelines and manage defining events like this one. It seems manifold has chosen to just let stuff happen. And this in now pretty clear to all.
@Jotto999 The Kelly Criterion is based on a logarithmic utility function. If your utility function is superlogarithmic, you should bet more than Kelly suggests. If your utility function is sublogarithmic, you should bet less than Kelly suggests. That's just math.
@JacyAnthis Take the linear utility function, assuming whatever mana you make will be donated anyway. With the consideration that Manifold is going to bail you out and refund you when you lost, it make sense to go 500% leveraged. Should have just gone for the maximum leverage possible
@JacyAnthis I'm very skeptical when people claim to have a e.g. linear utility function. Whatever rationale they give, in the real world, that tends to end disastrously. And the bigger the bettor, the more an excessive bet produces bad side-effects/externalities onto others when it eventually goes bust. Isaac was likely traumatized by his mistake here, and it didn't need to happen at this scale. He may recover but...you have to survive mistakes, for superlogarithmic utility to be useful.
Note that there are situations when going somewhat above Kelly can be better. E.g. in some evolutionary situations when the goal is relative wealth instead of absolute.
But when some people say it's worth to just max out bets in a directly linear fashion for charity, they're kidding themselves. They sound like SBF. They blow up eventually, and the bigger they were, the more of a negative externality their foolishness becomes.
@Frankt In a sufficiently-synthetic list of assumptions, maxing out could be the most-productive thing. But given real-world uncertainty and side-effects, alas...
@Jotto999 nah SBF was just unlucky. Obviously people with actual linear utility function would rationally bet all their wealth (or more than that), and of course you will see 99% of them end disastrously (e.g. going bankrupt) because that's what happens when you bet all your wealth repeatedly. But in an alternate universe, where Bitcoin kept rising, SBF might have already became the richest man on Earth after he doubled his wealth 10 times.
/s
@Frankt They push it well into net negative (for society at large) when they're doing this at big scales. SBF didn't just get rich and donate billions to charity in that 1% of worlds, and then harmlessly fade in the 99%. He cost society billions in those 99% of outcomes.
Usually I think rationalists have great judgment. But this acceptance of destructive position sizing is just nuts (particularly when done at large scale). When they're betting $5 at a carnival, they can get away with "linear utility". The bigger the scale, the more they're just being insane and dooming a lot of value to a negative-sum bet.
@TobyBusickWarner Alas, if someone is committed to nuking themselves, so be it.
@Jotto999 I think the better lesson is, don't get into dollar auctions. Or don't play chicken.