Resolution Criteria:
The market resolves “Yes” resolves to the month (in PT) when Bitcoin (BTC) reaches or exceeds $150,000 USD at any point between Jul 11, 2025 and Jun 30, 2026 at 23:59 PT, based on data from Coinbase. The price must be reflected as the high price in any 1-minute candlestick during this tenure.
If Bitcoin does not hit $150K during this time, the market resolves “N/A.”
Resolution Date & Time: Jun 30, 2026, at 23:59 PT, or earlier if Bitcoin crosses $150K at any time during the tenure.
1,000People are also trading
@Jo2e2b you mean it's impossible BTC gets there in 4 months? should all open markets like that (or worse) resolve NO right now?
@deagol I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm saying the way the market is designed doesn't make sense.
i must be thick or something but even considering all the silly confusion of casual traders stumping NO on anything they see high, how can the end game here (say a month or two before N/A) not be at least >30-35% May and >50-55% June?
@predyx_markets can you think of anything to add to the title to clue traders on the N/A likelihood? something like [WARNING: NO bets unlikely to pay off] or perhaps less blunt? maybe @mods have better ideas (see discussion in other thread)
RE: buying impossible YES's, of course the most "logical" or "theoretically correct" end point, assuming it hasn't happened by end of May is 99% June, but the capital needed to overcome the casual NO stomping makes it prohibitive, and whatever temporary profits made before NA not even worth the trouble.
@deagol @predyx_markets polymarket has BTC 150k by June 2026 at 2%. Too attractive not to bet NO quickly in passing as I did repeatedly, though deserve the snark for not reading the comments and description. @deagol the example you shared seemed to have the perfect option, putting (will resolve NA if it BTC doesn't reach 150k) in the title.
@predyx_markets yeah that's what i've been explaining here, feels like i speak another language. i was suggesting (right from day 3) that the title be edited, something like [resolves N/A if not by June] seems reasonable.
@deagol felt like gambling. Worth taking a wild long shot for the large return. I truly think BTC will surpass 150K in October 2026, but anything's possible, so...
PSA for @traders the only way NO on June pays off is if it happens before June, since after June 30 it's N/A.
@deagol welp that's an annoying resolution set up that I did not pay attention to, but I imagine I'll at least eek at a small profit as I did for the previous months, but a not great capital lockup
@ShaneBo the most likely outcome is we all get our capital back, just keep in mind any and all realized profit/loss would get reversed as well, and all loans paid off (can impact your balance if/when it happens).
@deagol I understood the rules to be that any realized profit/loss is retained as long as the trade happens before the market closure. I.E: if the Market was NA'd today: the profit I earned from selling out of my February and March positions is kept as those trades were "realized" events and only the unrealized gains/losses (my current positions not yet sold) are returned to me at the original investment amount.
@ShaneBo nah, it all gets undone as if the market never existed and nothing had happened. https://docs.manifold.markets/faq#what-does-resolving-to-na-do
@deagol if this is the case, not cool @predyx_markets . You made a market where the likely outcome is NA, something shared by other markets that had the odds of 150K very low. Even at inception the chance of NA would have been the plurality option. This is a very poor design choice
@ShaneBo it's not really @predyx_markets 's fault. This is a preset "Date" market type, which purportedly automates the ranges, except it's flawed by not also creating an "Other" or "later" answer to address this issue. The creator was only trying to use the tools available to facilitate market creation, it's just the tools are sometimes a bit funky.
@deagol I don't know I get that the tools can be clunky and I've made some errors in my manifold experience, but the outcome of it hitting 150 K is pretty clearly understood (it hits it or doesn't) and if there is preset date you can very easily answer each deadline with yes or no. Not yes or NA. This should have been addressed months ago, with the resolution criteria appropriately defined to not allow for NA to be anything above a marginal outcome.
You made a market where the likely outcome is NA, something shared by other markets that had the odds of 150K very low. Even at inception the chance of NA would have been the plurality option.
Not at all. At inception, on July 12 last year, BTC was trading at 118k, and probability of 150k within a year from then was quite high (tho I can't find a market about June or July this year, there's a couple for 2026 and back then all well over >50%).
This should have been addressed months ago, with the resolution criteria appropriately defined to not allow for NA to be anything above a marginal outcome.
I do get your frustration, I myself made this comment 3 days after market creation asking to have this exact issue clarified in title and description (only the description was clarified). However, what you ask, that the criteria should not allow for N/A, is impossible to implement in this market type once created, since no more options could be added, and once a few traders have traded on the options as they were, you can't really change them in any way without unfairly impacting some of those early bets (e.g. editing the last option to say "After May 2026" would work but some bets had already been made with the original meaning).
Edit: please notice how the creator early on did address the issue by creating another market and posting it here, with the correct market structure achieved by subverting the automated tool and manually adding options for "before xx" and "after yy".
@deagol looking up historical market odds in june 2025 shows markets ranging from 44-55% for Biticoin reaching 150k in 2026. So NA being the outcome was either the most likely outcome or just a bit outside the most likely outcome. NA shouldn't be even a 5 or 10% likely outcome. There is answer to this question that literally can not resolve NO under any circumstances because of the NA decision(June 2026). That should never be a thing on Manifold, and this makes me think this market should be NA'd now. As the criteria were never suitable to be open to trading.
It doesn't seem correct to me to say that it would be impossible for the market to not allow for N/A in it's criteria given that every answer available in this market has a clear and provable yes or no answer(including June without the silly NA rule adjustment) I assume most people who just see the question and options make the assumption(as I did ) that since each answer can have a clear resolution that the market would allow for that. There are plenty of markets in this set up that do this exact thing that I've outlined to prevent NA from being possible, you just answer the options as they can provably be answered, you don't even need to add the Not 2026. This seems fair and reasonable to me. Open to being wrong here, let me know where you may disagree
In an automated time based market N/A should be observed for some black swan events. For this case it would have been : Bitcoin is disolved, all trading has been halted, etc.
@ShaneBo here's a well capitalized and popular (175 traders) market for 150k in 2025, rallying to ~50% in the couple weeks after this market, with 6 extra months, was created:
There is answer to this question that literally can not resolve NO under any circumstances because of the NA decision(June 2026). That should never be a thing on Manifold, and this makes me think this market should be NA'd now. As the criteria were never suitable to be open to trading.
Huh? Can not under any circumstance resolve NO? The June 2026 answer can in fact resolve NO, as I stated in my original comment in this thread.
@ShaneBo I misspoke here. Can not resolve once we get to June where trading will still be allowed for 30 days
looking up historical market odds in june 2025 shows markets ranging from 44-55% for Biticoin reaching 150k in 2026
could you share those? thx
@ShaneBo Date markets should almost always be independent choice (if only so you can resolve expired options), but it's a very common mistake for people to create them as dependent choice.
There are plenty of markets in this set up that do this exact thing that I've outlined to prevent NA from being possible, you just answer the options as they can provably be answered, you don't even need to add the Not 2026. This seems fair and reasonable to me. Open to being wrong here, let me know where you may disagree
I agree that should be the correct market structure, and that structure is available when you create it as a "Set", all options independent of each other. However, the site developers also offered a new (back then) preset market structure called "Date" with "smart" range generation in which all options are dependent, and can only resolve YES to one date range and all other ranges to NO. The creator used that feature, trusting the designers knew what they were doing.
You can try it yourself, try using the "Date" market type and see if you can avoid this silliness without manually editing the options given.
@deagol fair , I suppose my two main gripes here are.
NA was even in most generous allowance at least a five-ten percent chance of happening from the onset(though if you look at any market on Kalshi and Polymarket you will see it at the 40-50+ percent likelihood, you can easily see the market over time on Kalshi, polymarket you have to dig a bit, I'll link a few) This in my opinion should have been rectified asap, but now that is hasn't makes me lean towards saying that it ought to be NA'd or closed to trading now; since markets shouldn't exist where it is more than a black swans events chance of resolving NA.
I don't understand what would have prevented the creator from just agreeing to answer NO to every option should it not reach 150k by June. That is not prevented from happening besides the decision to not allow it in the user generated user criteria. In my mind this seems to be the obvious resolution. This is what other "when will" manifold markets do. Other Predyx markets (granted they are not set to multiple choice) have allowed for a clear yes/no resolutions which traders should assume builds trust to not arbitrarily NA markets as will likely happen in this case. It is also what Kalshi and Polymarket markets do(though you can do the independent choice there). This was an easy mistake to happen but also to me seemed to have a very easy solution.
Am I mistaken on 2? Would the interface not allow Predyx to hit NO on each answer (including June) at time of resolution? Should BTC not reach 150K.
Am I mistaken on 2? Would the interface not allow Predyx to hit NO on each answer (including June) at time of resolution? Should BTC not reach 150K.
Unfortunately, that's indeed the case. For this "Date" market type (as well as other dependent types like Numeric and Multiple Choice), you must resolve at least one answer to YES (or weights for many), but never all NO:
@mana Sure, I suppose that's a fair opinion to have, particularly for highly speculative ones such as the one Daniel linked. But it is clearly stated in manifolds own guidelines that "You should not create markets with an expectation that an N/A resolution will be possible" . Which I think a reasonable interpretation of is NA being reserved for black swan(highly improbable) events that could not have been reasonably predicted. If a market does exist with any above marginal chance of NA; I think it should be clearly stated as in the superintelligence example
@ShaneBo Agree, the difference I think is in the intentional use to allow for price discovery, vs. the accidental likely result here, due to the market type limitation. Also with you on the solution of clearly stating it in the title should've been implemented early on with the description change.