To clarify—the scholarly requirement isn’t an actual requirement, but part of a cluster of values that a post should provide, aiming to make better models of the world. Sometimes that’s scholarly references to relevant papers (and prediction markets, preferably multiple or fairly heavily-traded). Sometimes that’s multiple examples and a framework for thinking about them. Sometimes it’s just a counterintuitive idea or recommendation, with a reasoning for why it’s part of https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/9KvefburLia7ptEE3/the-correct-contrarian-cluster.
Even the advice prohibition is more of a nuanced recommendation than a firm rule. But the exceptions are in the form of above—where there’s non-obvious evidence and interesting/novel approaches to the decision that lead to a contrarian take. This was neither. Anyone paying attention (and anyone reading this) already knows that Binance is owned by a nutjob and there is significant risk of fraud or future shenanigans.
And finally, this points out a risk, without considering alternatives or actions. Are ANY exchanges much better than Binance (my current belief: no)? Is this a recommendation to get out of crypto, or to stick with directly held Ethereum and Bitcoin, or something else?
I fully agree with the risks of using a thinly-traded, long-dated prediction market—that’s going to mostly be people emotionally invested in the topic (especially because it’s about charges, not conviction, and it’s about a celebrity founder, not the business itself). Manipulation is possible, but it’s not the only reason to downweight that evidence.
Oh, and the title was clickbait—there is no whistleblower information (insider reporting of crime or suspicious practices).
Ah, I didn’t even notice that clickbait aspect of the title, I’m so used to thinking of “whistleblower markets” as a thing. I’ve edited the title to just say Manifold market.
Thank you for the response. I actually do have a whole series where some comparisons could be made between crypto enterprises. You’re right that a single is less informative. In the future, I’ll assume I probably won’t have the energy to write up a detailed comparison, and just won’t bother trying to communicate my markets on LessWrong. Not meant to sound bitter—this is useful and will avoid wasting time. (EDIT: Unless there’s some way to format low-quality attempts as prototypes for feedback, perhaps that could be desirable.)
Agreed that the tradeoff of early feedback on partial ideas vs spending a LOT of time on a series only to find it’s not received well is difficult. Labeling something as tentative and partial helps a lot. Giving some outline of how it fits into an overall framework may or may not help.
Probably the biggest tactic I recommend is to use shortform for simple or untested ideas, then expand to a post if it gets good traction.
Also, I probably assume more readers accept the framework than they do. That prediction markets are worth using, that a market’s accuracy rises in a vaguely lognormal way with trading activity, and a random reader usually can’t beat it unless the market has few traders. I could try including a link to Scott Alexander making similar points for me.
To clarify—the scholarly requirement isn’t an actual requirement, but part of a cluster of values that a post should provide, aiming to make better models of the world. Sometimes that’s scholarly references to relevant papers (and prediction markets, preferably multiple or fairly heavily-traded). Sometimes that’s multiple examples and a framework for thinking about them. Sometimes it’s just a counterintuitive idea or recommendation, with a reasoning for why it’s part of https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/9KvefburLia7ptEE3/the-correct-contrarian-cluster.
Even the advice prohibition is more of a nuanced recommendation than a firm rule. But the exceptions are in the form of above—where there’s non-obvious evidence and interesting/novel approaches to the decision that lead to a contrarian take. This was neither. Anyone paying attention (and anyone reading this) already knows that Binance is owned by a nutjob and there is significant risk of fraud or future shenanigans.
And finally, this points out a risk, without considering alternatives or actions. Are ANY exchanges much better than Binance (my current belief: no)? Is this a recommendation to get out of crypto, or to stick with directly held Ethereum and Bitcoin, or something else?
I fully agree with the risks of using a thinly-traded, long-dated prediction market—that’s going to mostly be people emotionally invested in the topic (especially because it’s about charges, not conviction, and it’s about a celebrity founder, not the business itself). Manipulation is possible, but it’s not the only reason to downweight that evidence.
Oh, and the title was clickbait—there is no whistleblower information (insider reporting of crime or suspicious practices).
Ah, I didn’t even notice that clickbait aspect of the title, I’m so used to thinking of “whistleblower markets” as a thing. I’ve edited the title to just say Manifold market.
Thank you for the response. I actually do have a whole series where some comparisons could be made between crypto enterprises. You’re right that a single is less informative. In the future, I’ll assume I probably won’t have the energy to write up a detailed comparison, and just won’t bother trying to communicate my markets on LessWrong. Not meant to sound bitter—this is useful and will avoid wasting time. (EDIT: Unless there’s some way to format low-quality attempts as prototypes for feedback, perhaps that could be desirable.)
Agreed that the tradeoff of early feedback on partial ideas vs spending a LOT of time on a series only to find it’s not received well is difficult. Labeling something as tentative and partial helps a lot. Giving some outline of how it fits into an overall framework may or may not help.
Probably the biggest tactic I recommend is to use shortform for simple or untested ideas, then expand to a post if it gets good traction.
Short forms it is! Thank you.
Also, I probably assume more readers accept the framework than they do. That prediction markets are worth using, that a market’s accuracy rises in a vaguely lognormal way with trading activity, and a random reader usually can’t beat it unless the market has few traders. I could try including a link to Scott Alexander making similar points for me.