Update 2025-06-01 ...

....
Update 2025-07-01

Who in the world uses YYYY-DD-MM date format?

@BlaBla22 I have no idea it's just what the manifold AI used so I kept it lol

Hi @traders, I've decided on a resolution method that should be fair to everyone. Given that a market is essentially a consensus mechanism, my current proposal is that:

• Starting from the time I make this comment to the end of January, if this market stays below 5% or above 95% for more than 90% of the time (to account for any weird spikes) AND

• There is conclusive evidence in favor of YES/NO and no reasonable objections to it,

• This market will resolve YES/NO accordingly.

• This process will repeat for every calendar month until the question resolves or we reach the deadline date.

This way, if anyone has a strongly held view against the consensus, they are free to do so but must put their mana behind their conviction. I currently consider there to be conclusive evidence for Adrian Dittmann not being Elon Musk (https://maia.crimew.gay/posts/adrian-dittmann/, https://thespectator.com/topic/real-adrian-dittmann-not-elon-musk-x-account-fiji/). If you have any good counter arguments specifically against this evidence or issues with this resolution method, please post them below.

Thanks

@traders

@Ikajoh good effort, but look up 'market manipulation'

@Endothermia The only way to market manipulate would be to risk your own mana (and given the liquidity in this market it would be a large amount) and other people would be heavily incentivised to bet against you, so the only way I could see this method failing is if you were Jeff Bezos level rich or if the market was so tiny that nobody would notice the manipulation for an entire month

@Ikajoh you're probably right, but unless you can formally prove guarantees, conditioning a market's resolution on itself is generally a bad idea. there are more market manipulation strategies in heaven and earth horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

@Ikajoh Given that it's a market that is currently below 3%, wouldn't plenty of traders be incentivized to keep pulling it down, and few being confident result can be above 90%, regardless of nuances of evidence there is? I mean, at this point, isn't this more of a tug of war than actual belief in what the question is asking?

Obviously, I'm biased, so keep that in mind.

Haven't prediction markets shown themselves incredibly robust against manipulation techniques? Has a market ever been manipulated in the extreme ways described to above 97%/under 3% for over 90% of a month?

@Ikajoh this seems way too extra. It's possible for an obstinate minority to keep a market trading at 5-10% due to how discount rates work, even with loans, e.g. https://manifold.markets/Joshua/will-eliezer-yudkowsky-win-his-1500.

You've decided there is conclusive evidence for NO but are not sure about consensus. But the market trading where it is now should surely already constitute consensus. It's strange to be so unsure about the consensus part (which seems like a much weaker claim) while being resolute with the conclusive evidence part.

@cthor I agree with you on the second part, the consensus bit is quite meaningless considering the market already exists and you could say consensus has already been reached. I just didn't want to hastily resolve in case some crazy new information or rebuttals against the current evidence comes out or people are upset about the quick resolution. I could also just have said that I'll wait a month and decide whether or not to resolve then, but I figure formalizing it and giving it a specific criteria is better and easier to understand.

I disagree on the first part though, because assuming the market resolves in a month and you're 99% sure about the outcome, that's a 3-1=2% monthly return on investment which should be more than most people's discount rate, and anyone who wants to make some free mana and has the capital should bet it down. I personally think the discount rate would only matter if it's much longer intervals of time (like the market you linked). Also to even get the market above 3% you'd need to bet 1000+ mana which you're almost certainly going to lose, so I figure you'd only do so if you genuinely believed the consensus was wrong.

If the market does seem to be clearly manipulated though, I'll start a discussion and decide what to do about it. If it's very clearly just manipulation then I'll probably just veto it and resolve it.

@JonTdb03 This is true, but in my view there already is conclusive evidence that Adrian Dittmann is not Elon Musk, so I only haven't already resolved No just in case there's some wild new evidence or good rebuttals against current evidence that comes out.

Anybody who believes there is still reasonable doubt or thinks there are significant holes in the evidence is free to post their reasoning below and either the market will adjust accordingly or I can be convinced that the evidence is not actually conclusive enough and I will not resolve the question.

@Ikajoh sounds like you're already going to resolve NO and just don't want to be hasty. Waiting is fine, but don't need to overcomplicate it. Same thing with fewer edge cases:

"Resolves NO on Feb 1 unless someone makes a compelling case for YES."

I'd rather earlier since it's clearly a done deal but a month is fine. Just don't want potential for it to drag on with no new developments.

@Ikajoh Is this whale bait? 🤟

@Ikajoh I'd be a little worried about manipulation, in all honesty, with these resolution criteria.

If I were you, I'd just wait a month and then just resolve NO if no further evidence arises. I've spoken to some people who are Dittman-Musk true believers, and, I mean, even in the face of really conclusive evidence some people have their own opinions. I guess there's some conceivable world where Elon is playing like 4D chess and is using this guy's identity as his alt account or something, but like... I find that incredibly hard to believe and no amount of "LOOK THEY TWEETED WITHIN 60 SECONDS OF EACH OTHER" or "THEIR VOICES ARE THE SAME" is going to be very persuasive tbh.

Yep after reading all your comments I agree I should have just gone for the simpler option. I don't want to revert it all now but I'll change the margin to 5% just in case to make it a lot harder to market manipulate. I suppose I just wanted to make sure that there truly was a 'consensus' but its fair enough that it creates a lot of incentives for manipulation and at the end of the day it's still me who's deciding what counts as 'conclusive evidence'

@Ikajoh I think you should just make a judgement call as to whether there is a consensus (I think it's pretty clear that there is, there is not much need for a survey to tell you this). The market is not a good way to determine this - if its resolution depends only on its own price then there is no longer anything tying it to reality.

I would have even stronger words about what a bad idea it is, except that I'm pretty confident that if manipulation led to a YES resolution, moderators would override the decision and re-resolve. And knowing this, whales are unlikely to try to manipulate it anyway.

Yeah ok if Maia says they’re different people then they’re different people, https://maia.crimew.gay/posts/adrian-dittmann/ Sold my stake, it’s joever, I have never been more wrong

@KimberlyWilberLIgt why do they always look like this?

@sponge All degeneracy ultimately results in the destruction of beauty

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1875758660154163254

I've never seen a market in more need of resolution...

🤷🏽‍♂️

Resolves no

@nikki i think we should wait for further consensus as is being discussed below

(already sold all my shares in this market fwiw)