4 ms·

How about this scenario: I am the PI of a laboratory. I buy up the market and (falsely) announce that I succeeded in replication. Sell and make profit. Then a

How about this scenario: I am the PI of a laboratory. I buy up the market and (falsely) announce that I succeeded in replication. Sell and make profit. Then a couple of days later I announce that I made a terrible mistake. How do you prevent this scenario? I did nothing illegal, I just "not noticed the mistake I made".

alchemist1e9 3y ago
A version of that probably happened last night with Lk-99, the “Iris” replication claim. Why do think it’s such a problem? Those are the risks of speculating and the market adjusted back downwards in very short order. If Iris was a manipulator the gains were minimal and fleeting. The anti-markets comments all over this are so unfortunate and misguided. By your own logic don’t you just prove that a real lab is now potentially motivated to investigate and even replicate? If I’m working in a lab and it looks like it is working, why not let me place money on yes and speculate? I have excellent information.
- TehCorwiz 3y ago
  But a fraud was perpetrated and the scammer got away. The markets are supposed to ignore that? Money was taken out of the market by a bad actor. If anything this encourages quick fraud over slow honesty.
  - alchemist1e9 3y ago
    Markets don’t ignore it, they learn from it. They don’t need you or any authority to protect them. Edit: Understand that the scammer has to buy, then release the false information, and then sell. They only “scam” the buyers that don’t critically assess this new information, such as it’s provenance and quality. This means that over time only the best analysts survive and thrive. Smart speculators likely sold the spike, limiting the number of buyers the manipulator could find. This scenario is actually an argument FOR prediction markets.
    - morelisp 3y ago
      > They only “scam” the buyers that don’t critically assess this new information Yes correct that is a scam, no scare quotes. A scam doesn't become less of scam because it worked or didn't work.
      - alchemist1e9 3y ago
        So you feel governments should babysit prediction market speculators who can’t evaluate information for themselves? Or wait that’s too hard, so let’s just ban them, well because … fairness obviously. The issues are not problems as people make them out to be, you don’t have an intrinsic right to not be scammed, or to take vacations, as nice as it sounds, those are just fantasy that leads to worse situations when attempting to make reality.
    - marcosdumay 3y ago
      > they learn from it And the lesson is that betting markets are a scam. But then you get people criticizing the ones telling you that lesson. Is it because newborn fools must be preserved until people can take their money?
      - alchemist1e9 3y ago
        How are betting markets a scam? They are remarkably useful, you can watch the LK-99 market now and you will know immediately as new information arrives.
        weard_beard 3y ago
        The "replication" does not use the same methodology and the "scientist" is asking for bitcoin to post a video of the quantum locking effect. The existence of the market is encouraging literal scams.
        alchemist1e9 3y ago
        So what it’s also encouraging real information.
- dist-epoch 3y ago
  The base prior (the market price) is that this will not replicate. This scenario is a way to make a quick buck claiming the opposite without doing any actual hard work. In regular markets you can't just say "we increased our sales 1000%" and a week later "oops, sorry, misplaced decimal dot". You can do that in prediction markets.
  - alchemist1e9 3y ago
    If you are participating in a prediction market and blindly believe random claims, yes, you will lose your money. As you should. I don’t understand what you think is different with other markets. Information must be assessed for it’s accuracy and acted on by participants. In this case I’d even argue the prediction market helped focus attention and resulted in rapid counter analysis that questioned the claims. Perhaps without the LK-99 markets effects the false information would have had wider and longer reach? The losses of the unskilled participants are a perfectly acceptable cost and in fact beneficial in the long term.
    - dist-epoch 3y ago
      The reason regulation is introduced in every trading market is because scammers are killing the market. How long do you think an honest operator can survive in a market where 90% of participants are scammers? You talk about skilled participants. The way to have 100% skill is to manufacture an event. The history of financial markets is rich in examples. Or more recently, the endless supply of scamming in sports betting where athletes collude to fix games.
      - alchemist1e9 3y ago
        I understand that is the common perception and an understandable one based on how the information on this topic is presented to the public. However it’s likely not true, unregulated markets have boomed and provide many valuable services and information. I’ve personally heard an argument promoting even removal of insider trading laws and that markets would actually be fairer and more efficient without them.
swader999 3y ago
You would risk someone else of stature announcing against your position. There are also liquidity risks.
codethief 3y ago
I believe that falls under insider trading.
- dist-epoch 3y ago
  Conceptually, but not legally. Insider trading has a very specific definition, which does not apply here. In fact there are huge financial markets, like forex, where insider trading mostly doesn't apply.
aqme28 3y ago
Or the opposite. I successfully replicate in my lab, but the price on Yes is high, so I make a post about how there definitely isn't superconductivity, buy up all the Yes, and then say "Woops I made a mistake. It really does superconduct." OP is downplaying the shenanigans that can go on here. The only way to prevent it is some sort of SEC insider trading or market manipulation laws.
- sgregnt 3y ago
  The market already takes this possibility into account
adastra22 3y ago
This is illegal btw.

alchemist1e9 3y ago

A version of that probably happened last night with Lk-99, the “Iris” replication claim. Why do think it’s such a problem? Those are the risks of speculating and the market adjusted back downwards in very short order. If Iris was a manipulator the gains were minimal and fleeting. The anti-markets comments all over this are so unfortunate and misguided. By your own logic don’t you just prove that a real lab is now potentially motivated to investigate and even replicate? If I’m working in a lab and it looks like it is working, why not let me place money on yes and speculate? I have excellent information.

TehCorwiz 3y ago
But a fraud was perpetrated and the scammer got away. The markets are supposed to ignore that? Money was taken out of the market by a bad actor. If anything this encourages quick fraud over slow honesty.
- alchemist1e9 3y ago
  Markets don’t ignore it, they learn from it. They don’t need you or any authority to protect them. Edit: Understand that the scammer has to buy, then release the false information, and then sell. They only “scam” the buyers that don’t critically assess this new information, such as it’s provenance and quality. This means that over time only the best analysts survive and thrive. Smart speculators likely sold the spike, limiting the number of buyers the manipulator could find. This scenario is actually an argument FOR prediction markets.
  - morelisp 3y ago
    > They only “scam” the buyers that don’t critically assess this new information Yes correct that is a scam, no scare quotes. A scam doesn't become less of scam because it worked or didn't work.
    - alchemist1e9 3y ago
      So you feel governments should babysit prediction market speculators who can’t evaluate information for themselves? Or wait that’s too hard, so let’s just ban them, well because … fairness obviously. The issues are not problems as people make them out to be, you don’t have an intrinsic right to not be scammed, or to take vacations, as nice as it sounds, those are just fantasy that leads to worse situations when attempting to make reality.
  - marcosdumay 3y ago
    > they learn from it And the lesson is that betting markets are a scam. But then you get people criticizing the ones telling you that lesson. Is it because newborn fools must be preserved until people can take their money?
    - alchemist1e9 3y ago
      How are betting markets a scam? They are remarkably useful, you can watch the LK-99 market now and you will know immediately as new information arrives.
      - weard_beard 3y ago
        The "replication" does not use the same methodology and the "scientist" is asking for bitcoin to post a video of the quantum locking effect. The existence of the market is encouraging literal scams.
        alchemist1e9 3y ago
        So what it’s also encouraging real information.
dist-epoch 3y ago
The base prior (the market price) is that this will not replicate. This scenario is a way to make a quick buck claiming the opposite without doing any actual hard work. In regular markets you can't just say "we increased our sales 1000%" and a week later "oops, sorry, misplaced decimal dot". You can do that in prediction markets.
- alchemist1e9 3y ago
  If you are participating in a prediction market and blindly believe random claims, yes, you will lose your money. As you should. I don’t understand what you think is different with other markets. Information must be assessed for it’s accuracy and acted on by participants. In this case I’d even argue the prediction market helped focus attention and resulted in rapid counter analysis that questioned the claims. Perhaps without the LK-99 markets effects the false information would have had wider and longer reach? The losses of the unskilled participants are a perfectly acceptable cost and in fact beneficial in the long term.
  - dist-epoch 3y ago
    The reason regulation is introduced in every trading market is because scammers are killing the market. How long do you think an honest operator can survive in a market where 90% of participants are scammers? You talk about skilled participants. The way to have 100% skill is to manufacture an event. The history of financial markets is rich in examples. Or more recently, the endless supply of scamming in sports betting where athletes collude to fix games.
    - alchemist1e9 3y ago
      I understand that is the common perception and an understandable one based on how the information on this topic is presented to the public. However it’s likely not true, unregulated markets have boomed and provide many valuable services and information. I’ve personally heard an argument promoting even removal of insider trading laws and that markets would actually be fairer and more efficient without them.

swader999 3y ago

You would risk someone else of stature announcing against your position. There are also liquidity risks.

codethief 3y ago

I believe that falls under insider trading.

dist-epoch 3y ago
Conceptually, but not legally. Insider trading has a very specific definition, which does not apply here. In fact there are huge financial markets, like forex, where insider trading mostly doesn't apply.

aqme28 3y ago

Or the opposite. I successfully replicate in my lab, but the price on Yes is high, so I make a post about how there definitely isn't superconductivity, buy up all the Yes, and then say "Woops I made a mistake. It really does superconduct." OP is downplaying the shenanigans that can go on here. The only way to prevent it is some sort of SEC insider trading or market manipulation laws.

sgregnt 3y ago
The market already takes this possibility into account

adastra22 3y ago

This is illegal btw.