This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Are prediction markets still culture war? I bring this up because there's been some... controversy surrounding Polymarket and its resolution of a bet earlier this week. The market in question is this one regarding whether Microstrategy will sell any Bitcoins by a certain date. In particular I want to draw your attention to the recently resolved sub-market for May 31st. If you expand the history of the market you'll notice some very odd behavior for the odds. On June 1st, after the deadline for the sale had passed, the odds briefly spike up over 56% before crashing to essentially 0. Why did people become so convinced that Microstrategy had sold bitcoin in the window? And then why did people become so convinced that Microstrategy hadn't?
They might have been convinced in the first place because on June 1st Microstrategy published their 8-K which said they had sold 32 Bitcoin between May 26th and May 31st. That seems like a good reason to believe that Microstrategy had sold bitcoin before May 31st! Unless you thought their 8-K was a lie. It seems like it was a mistake to let people trade after it was public information which way the bet would resolve, but that's what happened.
Then why did the odds crash back down to near 0? Well, on June 1st the market was updated to add this disclaimer:
It's true that in reality Microstrategy did sell bitcoin before May 31st. A bunch of people did correctly predict that. But the market pays out to people who made a false prediction because the evidence that Microstrategy sold bitcoin didn't come out until the day after the deadline!
This isn't the first time a prediction market has had some controversy over how they resolved a market. Kalshi had a similar scandal earlier this year concerning its resolution of a market on whether Ali Khamenei would remain in power in Iran. This ones feel pretty blatant as a resolution for certain polymarket insiders who control how markets resolve via crypto vote, though.
There's often an assumption that prediction market odds track some kind of real probability of an event (predicetion markets themselves certainly lean into this) and that therefore their resolutions will track reality. I think this is a reminder that this is less true than we might suppose.
I am neither a prediction market nor cryptocurrency expert, but this seems to be bad from the very start.
A good prediction market is one where no actor can unilaterally decide the outcome at zero costs to themselves. For example, you might ask if some politician would remain in power, because they can not unilaterally decide to stay in power if external factors (impeachment, assassination, etc) force them out, and while they are free to resign, this will typically come at high costs to themselves.
This one seems as bad as a mention market. It is like playing roulette when the rules are that after you have placed your bet, the croupier will just place the ball at the number they feel should win and announce it.
Even if MicroStrategy will not directly change their behavior to fix the prediction market ("On Tuesday, we sold 100 sat worth of bitcoin, so better pay up, sucker"), it seems still a bad market to compete in because another party will have a substantial information advantage. Like, if you bet on the outcome of some kind of competition, like an election, sports event or war, some people have some insider information (like 'Player X got injured in training'), but at least their edge will be limited.
So there is already plenty of excellent reasons not to play in this market even before one gets to the fact that the resolution criteria will be just changed ex post facto to benefit the investors of one side of the trade. (On the object level, it seems very simple. If MicroStrategy sold any BTC, that would involve transactions on the block chain. So the "on-chain data" will reflect that fact (once the transaction is made part of the block chain by a miner). The fact that it is not commonly known who owns each address is quite frankly just a skill issue. Also, there is obviously a difference between "cutoff date for the bet" and "determination on what the facts were at the cutoff date". If a runner wants to contest his second place on grounds that it took photographic evidence to determine that he was not first, and that this clearly indicates that at the time he crossed the finish line, there was no credible information that he was not first, he would be laughed out of any court.)
I am also a bit surprised at this failure mode. My understanding is that people who hold some kind of token get to vote on the resolution of disputed markets, but the Polymarket docs I found do not go into a lot of detail. Ideally, one would want the people who vote to be the people who own Polymarket. Betters would ideally judge the worth of the company against their trade volume and only deal with them if they are convinced that a rug pull will not be more lucrative for the company than keeping running honestly.
What is interesting is that the trading volume of that market was 400M$, which is high but still small compared to the worth of Polymarket (16G$ or so). The worth of Polymarket hinges almost entirely on the presumption that it will fairly resolve markets. Nobody is going to play in a Casino where the boss will simply tell the dealer that the ball did not come to rest at the red nine but at the black 22 next to it.
More options
Context Copy link
This seems like a pretty easy fix - just require markets to clearly state the window during which they will consider information for resolution. The issue here was that it did not state one way or the other up front whether information after May 31st would count. This should be clear and explicit in the rules. Or maybe they will come up with a boilerplate formula and adopt that wording for most events, to avoid the confusion caused by the variance in rules and wordings.
There needs to be some sort of cutoff for practical reasons. Otherwise you'd have people coping and trying to delay resolution in the hopes that some new information would come to light any day now to flip the outcome.
At the very least you would think they would cut off trading in the market at the end date. The impression I get is a lot of people are mad because they traded after the 8-K came out and therefore regarded the bet as a sure thing. Same for the "clarification." Why allow people to continue to trade after either of these events?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think this is the case where polyarket will end up standardizing and tightening the rules around the timeframe that confirmation must take place. For example, this iran market https://polymarket.com/event/iran-ceasefire-continues-through says:
At least in this case the rules are clear that the proof of the event must happen by a cetain deadline. So even though the may 24th market stayed open for a week after, there are rules on what can be considered.
If there are no rules of course, then there's always the temptation to drag the market on in the hopes of new evidence coming to light. Maybe polymarket already has "default" rules for this but I don't know about it.
There's an infinite supply of edge cases and rules lawyerings. The long-term push for stuff will this (especially when an actual gambling and/or financial commission gets involved) will likely just be to cull as much of the niche markets as possible
And this isn't one of them. The terms of the market were:
This is unambiguously a statement that the sale will occur before 1159, not that the publicly available information confirming it will appear before 1159. MicroStrategy sold Bitcoin before the deadline, and this was confirmed by "information from MSTR" in the ordinary course of business, on the timetable you would expect for a sale shortly before the deadline.
This makes the LIBOR bros look honest.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Does polymarket no longer resolve markets through their secondary market mechanism?
Yes that's the UMA which is influenced by how much of their crypto token you hold and therefore skews insider
You're making it sound like it's some kind of cynical vote. You risk your tokens if you oppose consensus and anyone can buy the tokens. It's not like a shadowy council decides.
Yes but in practice the large holders of these tokens are a group of people who know each other well and are very active with size on Poly market.
If they aren't resolving markets at least somewhat accurately doesn't that threaten the value of the platform, and of their tokens if users stop trading?
In the long run sure yes and every time one of these situations happen a certain amount of people swear off them. It's a paradoxical situation with prediction markets where if anything you should be siding with the tourists over the regulars since the latter actually have a lot less leverage.
More options
Context Copy link
It's very rare humans with power weild it well lol
One topic that absolutely CAPTIVATES me is historical figures who were able to wield power wisely, then set it aside willingly rather than cling to it desperately.
Cinncinatus, George Washington, Augusto Pinochet (I know, I know).
Another topic that captivates me is the design of systems such that you don't have to trust the people in 'power' since the system itself incentivizes 'good' behavior by its very structure, or makes it very difficult for bad actors to do damage before they're removed.
Augur was pretty close to achieving that, but alas DApps were a doomed concept.
So whenever I look at systems like this, I really do question the incentives of the ones who control them, and ask whether they TRULY have skin in the game
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Obviously this is an insane rules lawyer stripout but it's reflective of why PMs will in the fullness of time slowly abandon all non-sports content as they are regulated and consider the novel real world stuff as too difficult to grade and manage
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link