4 ms·
The twin facts that the market maker gets to decide the outcome, and there being no binding requirements for how something closes, makes it an exercise in absur
by noduerme 5y ago
The twin facts that the market maker gets to decide the outcome, and there being no binding requirements for how something closes, makes it an exercise in absurdity. By leaving the decision up to them, you've made it impossible to measure the variables independently, so you'll never even be able to draw any useful opinion data out of it. It's not that hard to write a trading platform. I thought of an open prediction platform like this in 2011. The really hard part would be to write a framework in business logic and code that lets people design and resolve prediction contracts in a clear, enforceable, stable way. I'd personally be embarrassed if I wasted time building something like this just to say bluntly that there are a hundred ways it could be taken advantage of. If that's the case, you've thought just enough about the real problem to know that you can't solve it, and you want points for coding the easy part? Garbage.
- akrolsmir 5y agoI definitely understand this frame of mind. On the face of it, it seems quite absurd that anyone can do anything, e.g. insider trade, or use sock puppet accounts to manipulate information. In practice, we've seen it work okay so far! One key realization is that individual market creators on Manifold are given the same powers that existing prediction market platform or casino bookies are trusted with today. A trader is always placing some amount of trust in the bookie to not manipulate the own market, or pricing that risk into the transaction. We hope to make this risk clear and up-front, and to reward market creators who repeatedly adjudicate markets in a fair way.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- jahooma 5y agoYou've actually got it backwards. User-resolved markets is the brilliant part of our platform, but most people are not able to figure that out.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]