This market focuses on the relative share of solar electricity production in total global electricity production. The resolution date will shift based on market odds: it will move closer as the odds increase, and further away as the odds decrease. Initially, with 50% odds, the resolution date is set 50 years in the future. If the odds rise to 60%, the resolution date changes to 40 years in the future. Conversely, if the odds drop to 40%, the resolution date moves to 60 years in the future. Each change of 1% in odds adjusts the resolution date accordingly by one year. The market will resolve to YES when it trades at 99% and the resolution date one year ahead is reached. It will resolve to NO when it trades at 1% and the resolution date 98 years ahead is reached.
@OurWorldIntheFuture Not sure I follow the mechanism here.
Solar has risen to 5.5% from 0.1% in 2008 and 1% in 2015. Suppose everyone sensible thinks it will reach 10% in 4 years time so these people push price up to 99% making resolution 1 year away. Then some people start selling to push the price down to 97% which makes resolution 3 years away so people don't want to tie up their mana so sell and the price falls so the sellers can take a profit?
What does this achieve other than seemingly a disconnect between resolution and solar world generation that the question seems to be about?
If we wait a year then push price to 99% is the resolution date then in the past so immediately resolves true regardless of how far off solar is from 10%?
What is going on with this and why?
@ChristopherRandles I see this as an experiment. with an IF-and-WHEN market, that allows to simulanously trade the question if an event happens (odds in %) and when it will happen (resolution date). I'm not sure if that approach will prove to work, but I think it's worth a try. Let's wait and see how this develops.
>"The market will resolve to YES when it trades at 99% and the resolution date one year ahead is reached."
Is that 'one year ahead'
1. One year after claim creation date or
2. One year after date first reached 99% or
3. One year after date first reached 99% provided that at least at 99% at the end of the one year or
4. One year after date first reached 99% provided that at least at 99% at any point on or after the end of the one year or
5. One year after date reaching 99% and staying at least at that level for the whole one year period or
6. Something else.
Some, maybe all, of these seems likely to be a bad idea:
1. It will be pushed to 99% after one year regardless of what happens with solar.
2., 3. and 4. Push to 99% if prepared to wait a year for the profit regardless of what happens with solar 4 and particularly 3 require remembering to come back and push up to 99% one year later
5. It is easy to push down from 99% so people would make small bets at high % to delay resolution so I can imagine this not resolving for quite a while after solar at over 10%.
If you want two different questions why not two different markets but experimenting with a concept of two questions in one market is fine. However I am still struggling to see the aim & how you expect it to work (as well as not fully understanding exactly how it will be operated per different interpretations above).
Is "IF-and-WHEN" really two different questions or is it really a single 'when' question with never as one of the options?
@ChristopherRandles The one year ahead is meant like your number 5. One year after reaching 99% and staying at that level for the whole year, because a change from 99% to 98% would bring resolution date again to 2 years. And you are right, someone could try to delay resolution by bringing the odds with small bets to 98% again. It's an experiment and I'm learning.
I now think the one year period is much too long, the change of resolution dates should be shorter with higher odds. I have set up a new experiment with this market and would be interested to get your feedback on this one, too. https://manifold.markets/OurWorldIntheFuture/will-the-world-population-reach-82
@OurWorldIntheFuture Good luck with the experimenting and thanks for the answers.
I am thinking they are unattractive to bet on because of
1. the disconnect between what the question is supposed to be about and how and when it actually resolves and
2 While the mechanics of how and when it resolves may be interesting enough to some even though unrelated to question title, they look likely to be too long term for a decent rate of return.
@capybara It is up to you, if you bet YES or NO or don't engage on this market. We will see how this will develop.