Markets with too few traders often yield unreliable predictions. On Manifold, many struggle to attract even 5 traders, leading to less accurate outcomes. An incentive could address this issue. Manifold’s data suggests that calibration stabilizes between 10 and 20 traders, beyond which additional traders add little value. The goal, then, is to boost most markets to this range.
I propose adjusting the streak bonus: award it only for trades on markets with fewer than 10 traders. This would encourage participation in underserved markets, benefiting creators and improving prediction quality. Once most markets reach 10 traders, the threshold could shift to 20.
Resolution Criteria:
This market resolves YES if Manifold introduces any mana-based incentive in 2025 to encourage trading on markets with a small number of traders—whether my proposal (streak bonus adjustment) or another approach (e.g., an extra mana bonus). It resolves NO if no such incentive is implemented by December 31, 2025.
1,000
1.00structurally, manifold has generally preferred to push users towards a small number of popular markets (i.e. the default homepage is "browse" with "hot"/"best" sorts). you can agree/disagree that that goal, but this incentive system would be a fairly radical reversal of that goal. implicit in that is the assumption (which i think staff believes) that much of the total value on the site is driven by a small number of ultra popular markets.
i don't always agree with that, because much of the appeal of manifold to me are niche topics (where the ceiling on trader count is fairly low). but i don't think "encourage a modest # of traders on as many markets as possible" is a useful goal either? since manifold is UGC, most markets created are low quality, and there's not much to gain in encouraging a few more traders to put down a token bet. there are more markets created than the trader-base of manifold could possibly meaningfully pay attention to. their attention is better spent concentrated on a smaller number of actually functioning/high quality markets (while the difference in market functioning b/w 5 & 10 traders seems marginal to me)
@Ziddletwix skimming this again, i hope the tone doesn't imply that i think that traders do a good job of filtering the deluge of low quality markets & bet only on the good ones. they absolutely don't—there's minimal correlation between popularity and quality (if only traders had better taste! some of the most popular markets on the site are the worst designed). some of the highest quality creators on the site make countless market that get 1-20 traders.
nonetheless, i still don't necessarily think it's a good idea to push traders to spread their attention around as many markets as possible (particularly if it encourages mindless betting on something the trader isn't interested in, versus letting them pick the market they want to bet on most). it's very tricky!
Hi @Manifold, I hope you have noticed my proposal for an incentive to trade on markets with few traders, and will at least check it.
Arguably isn't the current incentive to trade on markets with few traders and inaccurate odds the very fact that you can profit from correcting those odds? I think easily 3/4 or more of my trades are on markets in the browse by new page precisely because that's where I can semi frequently find profit opportunities
@TheAllMemeingEye That's the perspective of a successful trader, ok. But most don't trade like that. My argument is that such an incentive would help creators and Manifold in general, because the average quality of predictions would increase.
That's the perspective of a successful trader
Haha I'm flattered but personally I'm not sure I would count myself a truly successful trader, or at least not as successful as I could be, my knowledge is limited enough that, despite the daily browse by new scouring, I'm still consistently unable to find enough markets that I am confident are at inaccurate odds with large liquidity, such that against my desires the fraction of my net worth that's just sitting as static balance is growing over time, and it kinda makes me jealous to semi frequently see other users that have been on the site a similar amount of time or less than me who somehow have skyrocketed to many times my all time profit
@GleamingRhino I think the criteria are very clear. Yes if an incentive for trading on markets with a small number of traders is introduced. No, if no such incentive is introduced.
@ConservationForecasts at the time I had written this comment the word “no” was not in the NO criteria, making them the same.
@Haiku Ok, that might be a downside. But the problem of bait market should be addressed anyway. One the other hand, such an incentive would bring lots of benefits for serious markets that struggle to get enough traders (like mine).
@ConservationForecasts ah, you're the extinction markets guy, sorry I wasn't paying attention to usernames so I only just twigged.
I can't speak for everyone, but personally the reason why I rarely bet on your markets despite the interesting theme and them frequently popping up is a combination of:
The short term extinction probability of a given exotic species seems like it could vary wildly from near 0% to near 100% based on the recent population/habitat trajectories, for which as a non zoologist I am unaware whether there even exists any free and super quick to access online database
The long term extinction probabilities combine the uncertainty of those trajectories extrapolated even further, with the vastly different possible end results of numerous impending highly disruptive technologies, especially artificial superintelligence, which gets even more convoluted by the correlation of negative scenarios with extinction of humanity, thus the traders, thus distorting the trading incentives
Edit: I'm an idiot, just realised you include links to IUCN pages with the relevant info