Resolves as YES if markets that depend on the destruction of humanity to resolve as YES or NO are banned from Manifold before 2030. Reasoning: prediction markets can't handle existential risk.
I can think of dozens of other types of markets that Manifold would be more likely to ban than x-risk markets - they aren't anywhere near the top of the list. Self-resolving markets, for example.
And also, should manifold ban questions on Manifold itself, given that they can't properly pay out if Manifold shuts down?
@jack E.g. "What number am I thinking of?" "How many grams will I lose in my next trip to the bathroom?" "Am I a bad person?" "Manifold is stupid" -- Yes, please ban all of those first. he x-risk markets are interesting, at least.
One good way to patch x-risk markets: change them from "all humans die because of X" to "10+% of humans die because of X in under three months." If something can knock out 10+% of humanity in less than three months, it's an x-risk. But there will still be humans around to adjudicate the claim, so the game theory won't make the YES tickets shoot to 0%.
"10+% of humans die because of X in under three months."
Already done (although with 5 years instead of 3 months):
However, the forecasts on 10% of humans dead vs 100% are very different. For example, nuclear and AI are similarly likely to kill 10% of humans, but nuclear is extremely unlikely to kill 100% of humans while AI is still quite likely: https://www.metaculus.com/questions/2568/ragnar%25C3%25B6k-seriesresults-so-far/
@FubbiQuantz Your theory that game theory will make the value of YES shares shoot to zero does not correctly predict what actually happens on these markets. Perhaps there is some factor it is not accounting for?