Yes = Buy
No = Short
This is a permanent market and its duration will be lengthened as long as it's allowed. The aim is to sell your stock (see top right after you've made a bet) when you believe your side has over-corrected and buy in/short it again once it's over-corrected to the other side. Essentially, it's meant to function like a traditional stock market.
Read more: https://help.manifold.markets/manifold-101/why-would-you-sell-your-shares
1,000
3.00@JosephNoonan I think I over estimated Desantis. I have no confidence anymore in the GOP. What is it gonna take for people to see him for what he is? It’s so shameless at this point it must just be about owning the libs, which is, weird and gross. Not to mention homophobia and transphobia. Like what the fuck is going on with the Republicans?? And I am a former President of the College Republicans.
@BTE I think there are better ways to do democracy than to have presidential election anyway (and this system isn’t even very democratic).
The systems I would prefer to this, are also democratic, often more democratic.
@BTE I remember you writing an argument about how Trump probably won't be allowed to run, and if he does, he will get destroyed (which I attempted to refute).
Seems like we're now in agreement?
@saulmunn Too much billionaires, with money not linked at all about how good they are at making predictions (or even at their general competence, for a lot of them), for this to work correctly.
Maybe with some restriction on how much alternative money you can buy to use it for predictions (so if you are good at predictions, you can still exponentially increase it, and make more predictions, and convert it backs to make a profit, but some billionaires can’t just mess the system because they don’t care too much about how much they lose, or because they are just bad at it).
Also with these kind of restrictions, I don’t think this is very much undemocratic.
First, you still have to democratically decide what you want, the markets are just here to know how probable things are.
Second, everyone could participate to collaboratively decide the credence of stuffs (even if some will have more weight in it, but I think every system will have something like that).
In fact, I think some implementation of this could be more democratic than a presidential election.
Maybe with some restriction on how much alternative money you can buy to use it for predictions
In fact, I think we should go further than that, and only allow some level of transfers of "alternative money" between different categories. Because there is certainly something like "being good at predictions in general", but also something as "knowing stuffs and having some expertise on a particular subject".
I think there are probably good way to create the categories and decide of a good level of allowed transfers between them, with some statistical analysis from the data.