@mods resolves n/a

I disagree. Copied from the discord thread:

I suppose one could make a case for resolving one of the underlyings n/a now, which would force an n/a of the derivative. I think I'd rather not, though, for all the usual reasons n/a is bad. Turns into whale bait seems better, it at least lets early traders who cashed out keep their predictive gains.

Leaving the derivative open while resolving this one seems particularly weird. If people are going to resolve this one, I'd appreciate it if they explained how they wish to handle the derivative and explain why n/a is better than letting it resolve as a weird whalebait.

/AmmonLam/will-the-stock-market-respond-more

/dreev/how-bad-is-it-to-resolve-a-market-a

In particular, I expect this market to eventually resolve N/A after the election, but I think it should remain open until then. Resolving this market N/A at that time is reasonable (it was clearly defined in advance) if not ideal (there would have been better ways to write this trio of markets). Faithfully executing this market is of course better than making weird changes to it.

My objection is to resolving this one n/a early, because that (presumably) forces the derivative to resolve n/a as well, when that was not required. I do not see any reason to think the original traders were unprepared to wait until election for a resolution on this market.

@EvanDaniel This is a poor argument. All other Biden conditional markets have resolved N/A. The derivative should N/A as well, since the premise of the market is no longer valid

@nikki The premise of the derivative was valid until this market was resolved n/a. One of the two underlyings was expected to resolve n/a at the time it was written; the fact that one did so does not invalidate the derivative market. Had this market remained open, the premise of the derivative would remain valid (if not terribly informative). The derivative has turned into (slightly convoluted) self-resolving whalebait as a result, but see my comment there for why resolving it as such is better than n/a.

@EvanDaniel The derivative market was definitely not intended to be a strange nonpredictive whalebait. It assumed the election was between Biden and Trump, which is not the case anymore.

@nikki Sure, but if people extracted predictive profits (or losses) before it ceased to be a predictive market, they should get to keep them! If we had a useful way to halt trading while preserving those, this would be a case to use that, but we don't.

@EvanDaniel Any mechanism allowing gains from a n/a market would be a Keynesian beauty contest or whalebait, unfortunately.

@nikki Well, if "n/a" means "unwind things", sure. But there are options other than "unwind things".

The derivative market becomes equally nonpredictive if the election result looks certain in advance of the election for reasons other than one party dropping out. In fact it forms a whole spectrum of interestingly predictive to boring whalebait depending on how certain the election looks as of Nov 1st!

And I don't see a real downside to letting the derivative market become whalebait; we allow plenty of explicit intentional whalebait markets without forcing an n/a on those.

@nikki Im sorry to interrupt, but I just wanted to clarify, arent trading profits (buy and sell before NA) kept on questions that NA? Or is that unwound too?

@ScipioFabius Those are unwound as well.