@Gen What is the reasoning behind making funding cost a proportion of the margin and not of the exposure? Wouldn't this incentivise the larger group to get more leverage and the smaller group to keep leverage low, resulting in a larger gap between longs and shorts?

@Gen can we get a perp on GPU prices!?

Idea: Don't execute a transaction until after the next update of the oracle price on Manifold. That way nobody can profit off of knowing the source data before it updates on Manifold.

@HankyUSA I experimented with this idea a little but the UX is kinda bad for everything except bitcoin. You can show something like, "order will fill at the next price" and then it shows as a pending order, but for things that update once a day, it feels bad to have a pending order all day - and I can only imagine it would feel much worse if you were actually right and it meaningfully changed the next day, and your buyin was impacted

Definitely something we can revisit later but I'm happy with how perps have settled, I am comfortable that they will work long term, and that we have sufficient levers to add more without risking a ton of house money

@Gen No, it's not working. Thousands of Mana are being wasted on fees to fund the bots that keep stealing Mana, and the fees are blocking transactions. The bots have been reported but haven't been suspended yet. It's been a week.

The problem you mention doesn't exist; already, half of all Bitcoin trades are executed at a different price because the chart doesn't update fast enough. What would need to change? For markets with slower updates, you just need to delay purchases to the 5 minutes before the update, or something like that. Even if the time is random, you could consider a retroactive solution, since very few users are likely to happen to be online at that specific random time anyway...

Suggestion: I think that local/global temperatures and other climate metrics could make good perpetual markets.

@CommanderKeen Definitely! Very interested in having something like this. The difficulty so far is finding something to use as a data source, but good to know there is interest here 😄

Crazy that bots are already scalping ^^

So now there IS a fee?

@ChurlishGambit yes, the fee goes to the pool on that market. We can adjust down if needed.

The fee is currently 0.1%, so if you buy bitcoin at 65,000 you need to sell above 65,065 to profit.

Two bots were raiding the pool every few seconds by trading the difference between our site and the oracle, and were making about 7k/hr, so if we didn’t implement a fee the pool would have drained and there would be no liquidity for traders

@Gen Just ban the bots. Obviously, they can't operate in markets like that. Don't spoil the fun, because it makes it hard to enjoy the site with all those movements of few minutes, and thus reduces the time users spend on the site. It was a disaster when they tried to implement it for regular markets.

@Emanuele1000 And besides, it also makes it difficult to change leverage (simply put, if I know I won’t be able to check the site for a day, I lower the leverage). Before, I would just close one position and open another; at worst, I’d lose a little if there was a change in the time between opening and closing. Now, to change leverage, I have to spend Mana to “dilute” it. I guess it makes sense to always use the minimum leverage now, but then the “funding” is higher. That’s an added burden.

@Gen Why not simply, ban bots? In the other thread there was a lot of argument in favor of the funding system as a way to avoid fees, so it's weird to turn around immediately & add a fee. Messy.

@ChurlishGambit how would you suggest we ban bots? Even if we ban API trades you can easily do what those bots were doing manually, or bot it in client wthout using API, or on an account not marked as a bot

My thinking is, it's always better to incentivise the activity you want (people holding their trades for >15seconds) than expect to be able to moderate it all manually.

I agree that fees are suboptimal, which is why when we add limit orders, those will not have fees - even though we don't actually have an orderbook, it doesn't conflict with the behaviour we want to incentivise.

These fees are also materially different to previously, because the fees gathered from this go straight into the liquidity pool. We're not taking the mana back. This means winners can run further before getting ADL'd.

@Emanuele1000 Point taken about it being difficult to change leverage, that sucks! Something for us to think about, alongside partial closes & limit orders.

@Emanuele1000 ayo you a hater :( I don’t wanna get banned, I didn’t do anything against TOS

@Gen If you can label bots, why can't you ban them?

@ChurlishGambit why would you want to ban us? That’s so harsh, we don’t deserve to be banned from this beautiful website

@Emanuele1000 Another problem caused by fees: I had a 100k short position and wanted to increase it, but by mistake I didn’t realize I’d selected “long,” and even though I bought a small long position, it completely closed out my short position. It wouldn’t be such a big deal if it weren’t for the fees, but with the fees, that means I lost 0.10%...

@Emanuele1000 I understand the frustration but banning us means banning accounts of people that spent hours building the bots thinking it’s legal. All my earned mana would disappear forever.

@JasonMendoza2008 I’m not saying we should ban the account; I’m saying we should ban bots from API-based markets, especially when, as in this case, holding long or short positions doesn’t affect market trends.

One solution could be to propose postponing the trade until the next data update; that way, even if I manage to receive the new data in advance, I still can’t take advantage of it because the trade will be executed based on the new data (in the case of markets that receive one update per day, I imagine it would be enough to “delay” trades only starting 10 minutes before the new data arrives).

@Emanuele1000 The fees are just ruining the experience. On the first day, I spent a couple of hours trading Bitcoin minute by minute and, above all, experimenting. If things went wrong, I could have closed the position right away and only lost whatever the price shift might have been. Yesterday I invested 100,000 mana, only to discover that doing so would have completely thrown off the “funding,” and it wasn’t worth it anymore, so I lost 100 mana...

@JasonMendoza2008 Because bot accounts mostly add spam, junk, & noise. & in this particular case, bot accounts caused the addition of unpopular fees to the perpetual markets. They are a net negative for this "beautiful website"

@ChurlishGambit noooooooooooooooooo :( if bots make money they don’t add noise. Literally. Can’t make money without predictive power. Thats the whole point of the website. So, they add predictive power. Since to make money you need to bet closer to the ground truth than the website is. So bots help get an indication of the true value of things a few milliseconds or hours before you, human, find out about the true value of things.

@JasonMendoza2008 Noise:

@ChurlishGambit predictive power ehehehehhehehehhe

@JasonMendoza2008 What predictive power? Zero-trader markets don't add predictive power.

@ChurlishGambit zero for now :)

@JasonMendoza2008 More than half of the markets your account makes, have two traders or fewer. Only 17 of your account's markets, out of 327, have ever attracted more than 10 traders. 17:310 is a really horrendous signal-to-noise ratio, very little "predictive power."

@ChurlishGambit very little is better than no predictive power hehe

@JasonMendoza2008 No, it isn't, actually, because you're not really providing "predictive power." You're providing random, skewed opinions from one or two people—or, in most of your markets, none at all—neither of which actually help predict anything.

@ChurlishGambit my calibration and profit curve seem to say otherwise though, in terms of predictive power :) 😈

@JasonMendoza2008 Well, no, your profit curve & calibration do not measure the predictive power of your spam markets.

@ChurlishGambit It measures my predictive power. Banning me would result in less accurate predictions overall on this website.

@JasonMendoza2008 Which has nothing to do with the spam & noise you're generating with your bots.

@ChurlishGambit Well my bots have profits too. If anything, users with negative profits are the ones introducing noise since they add bets and are on average wrong. 😂

@JasonMendoza2008 Again, none of that is relevant to the fact that you create a lot of spam markets & a lot of noise that contributes nothing.

Also, you can make lots of profit on here without actually making good predictions. There are lots of ways to manipulate markets, or place bets after an event has been determined, & so forth. But my main point is, & continues to be: your bots contribute mostly noise & spam.

@ChurlishGambit "place bets after an event has been determined", that's predictive power though. You bring information a few miliseconds/seconds/hours before it would've gone through. It's useful.

@JasonMendoza2008 It isn't a prediction if you know the outcome. Do you know what a "prediction" is?

@ChurlishGambit a prediction is just a bet you make on a prediction market, whether you know the outcome or not doesn't change much, you’re predicting the outcome the market will be resolved as in the future and you’re rewarded for it. I don't know why you're so angry about this, I understand it's hard to work on yourself when you make consistent losses but blaming it on bot users stealing your alpha isn't going to help.

@ChurlishGambit FWIW, I said I'd completely stop creating markets anyway, so complaining is a bit useless. Also it's completely off topic since the discussion around bots here concern perps. 🤷‍♂️

@JasonMendoza2008 No, a "prediction" is when you pre-dict something. That means, before you know the outcome, you make a guess about the outcome. Once you know the outcome, you're not predicting anything. You're just betting against a sloppy house.

I haven't said anyone is "stealing my alpha." I'm not a Wall Street Bets weirdo, so I don't talk that way, & I never blamed bots for anything other than spam & noise.

You seem like you may be over-addicted to gambling, if it's to the point that you're using distorted new definitions of words like "predict."

@ChurlishGambit Yeah studying the etymology of words and complaining about bots sure will help you make more profits.

@JasonMendoza2008 If you think you need to "study etymology" to know the meaning of a very common word like "predict," then yes, you probably should study more etymology.

You keep bringing up my profits...it's play money. It doesn't matter how big the number is or isn't. I make a lot of goofy bets, because it's fake money. If you are so attached to the number of fake money you have that you imagine it would be upsetting to have a low number, again, you may want to review your gambling habits.

@ChurlishGambit Well you said it yourself, it's play money, stop wanting to ban me because I make more play money than you on perps lmfao.

@JasonMendoza2008 Once again, that isn't the issue. I don't even bet on perpetual markets, the way they're done here makes no sense.

YOU asked ME why I thought bots should be banned. You started this interaction. I gave you my answer, & you're trying to come up with fake answers to put in my mouth. More noise.

@ChurlishGambit it’s a post about perps lmfao.

@ChurlishGambit take a chill pill and stop asking for bans

@ChurlishGambit hi bot are cool and are anyway part of every market. So i think banning them will not make them go away. But regulating them is fine. As here it is more about fun, i guess if anything can make the bots softer for human trader, then it is fine. Right now in this btc perp market i would not even be sure that the bots affect it in anyway.

@Pyroll The fee announced in this post, is because of the bots.

"The pool was gradually being drained by bots scalping every 5-10s, and to prevent this we have added a fee of 0.1% when opening new positions on perps markets."

@JasonMendoza2008 You're being very childish.

@ChurlishGambit yes, there are fees. I dont see it as a bad thing. Do you ?

@Pyroll I think you meant to tag @ChurlishGambit aha. For me fees are bad because I can’t get free money as easily anymore but it’s good because it was unfair anyway ahahaha.

@JasonMendoza2008 yes that what i meant i edited :) great answer though

@Pyroll The fact that I paid thousands of Mana, probably even more than 10k Mana, to fund bots is a hugely negative experience. And it’s absurd that this is still allowed just because Bitcoin’s price fluctuates by 0.1% several times a week.

who was scalping???!!!!!! 😠