Dwarkesh Podcast - Stephen Grugett (Manifold Markets Founder) - Predictions Markets & Revolutionizing Governance

Episode Date: May 5, 2022

Stephen Grugett is a cofounder of Manifold Markets, where anyone can create a prediction market. We discuss how prediction markets can change how countries and companies make important decisions.Manifold Markets: https://manifold.markets/Watch on YouTube. Listen on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or any other podcast platform.Episode website here.Follow me on Twitter for updates on future episodes.Timestamps:(0:00:00) - Introduction(0:02:29) - Predicting the future(0:05:16) - Getting Accurate Information(0:06:20) - Potentials(0:09:29) - Not using internal prediction markets(0:11:04) - Doing the painful thing(0:13:31) - Decision Making Process(0:14:52) - Grugett’s opinion about insider trading(0:16:23) - The Role of prediction market(0:18:17) - Dealing with the Speculators(0:20:33) - Criticism of Prediction Markets(0:22:24) - The world when people cared about prediction markets(0:26:10) - Grugett’s Profile Background/Experience(0:28:49) - User Result Market(0:30:17) - The most important mechanism(0:32:59) - The 1000 manifold dollars(0:40:30) - Efficient financial markets(0:46:28) - Manifold Markets Job/Career Openings(0:48:02) - Objectives of Manifold Markets Get full access to Dwarkesh Podcast at www.dwarkesh.com/subscribe

Now, here's a question I've had for a while. Why don't companies who have direct incentive to get the best possible information on themselves, on the factors affecting their business, why aren't they using internal prediction markets if this is the best way to aggregate information? All right, this is going to be fun. Today, I have the pleasure speaking with my friend, Stephen Gruget. He's the founder of Manifold Markets, which has received a grant from Scott Alexander. Scott has written thousands of words about these, thousands of words about these guys. and they've raised a $2 million seed round.

And, you know, it's an incredibly exciting project. So, Stephen, why don't you tell us a little bit about manifold markets? Great. Thanks so much for having me on this podcast, Orcash. It's great to be on here after seeing other people like Tyler Cowan and David Deutsch. I guess first thing, I'm one of three co-founders of Manifold markets. But what we're doing is building a platform for user-created prediction markets. So the idea is that anyone can come onto our site and create.

a question about anything that they care about. And then they can have their friends and other people on our site come bet on that. And the betting process through the magic of our like market mechanism will help, you know, get the best and most calibrated probabilities that you can find. So let's talk about the mechanism here. So the, uh, correct me fair wrong, but the idea is you use real money to buy manifold dollars. What is your reason for expecting that people will care a lot about how many? many manifold dollars they have. So what is your hypothesis about human nature and reputation that

makes you think this is something people are going to invest a lot of effort and time into calibrating? Yeah. So I guess to take a step back for people listening to this, Manifold uses a play money currency. If you sign up right now, we'll give you a thousand manifold dollars, which is our in-platform currency for you to use and bet as you see fit. But the reason why we think that play money can work is that people are driven more by status and competitiveness than greed. You know, we kind of see ourselves as a social game where people can come on to hone their skills at predicting and then demonstrate to others that they really do know more about what they what they're talking about and they can prove it with an objective track record from their

betting history. Yeah, that's a very interesting point, which makes me wonder, do you explain, that in the future, Wall Street firms will be enticed to get the top people on the leaderboards on manifold markets to come work for them. One of the objections that Tyler Cowan has to prediction markets is, you know, he's kind of tongue in cheek about this, but I remember at one point he saying, you know, if you guys are so good at predicting stuff, you would expect all these hedge funds to be trying to constantly hire you guys. The fact that they're not makes me think that, you know, this is kind of just a hobby. This is not. So I'm curious about your reaction. Do you expect people to be coveting these top predictors for their, you know,

for their prowess at predicting in the future? Yeah, I'm obviously very biased, but I think something like that is possible. I think we have a leaderboard right now. Our top predictors are actually quite good. The person who's currently occupying the top slot, one big on the Russian, on one of our markets on whether Russia would invade Ukraine in February. So in the forecast, in community in general, there actually is, like, as you would expect, a fair amount of overlap between the people who are using these services and financial professionals who actually do manage money or trading as their profession. So I don't entirely agree with the premise of the question or Tyler Count's earlier point. Although, obviously, as a play money platform, we do attract

a fair number of hobbyists who, despite not having a financial background, still are quite good. I do believe that there's a lot of like untapped potential in the in these top predictors and that sites like ours actually are able to identify them. In your experience, what has made people who are the top predictor so good at so good at the art? Is it just their domain knowledge? You know, I know there's different theories about how people can get good at predicting. You know, based on your experience, what kind of traits do you identify here? So probably a big one is just like experience. A lot of our top predictors have actually come from other sites and have spent a good deal of time thinking about forecasting and prediction in general.

Probably the first hurdle that most people have to overcome in order to start improving as a predictor is getting used to clarifying and crystallizing your views about the world. If you're thinking about some political event, you can very easily incorrectly misremember that you got some event right or not. But if you're not like actively putting out like numerical predictions and recording those to keep yourself to keep yourself honest, it's very difficult to improve. So if you have to have that, that's a good first step. And a lot of our users already cleared that before, before joining our site. You know, we talked about whether finance firms would want to hire these predictors. But it would be incredibly exciting if you lived in a world where, you know, news firms would want to hire the people who are very good at predicting. Scott Alexander actually has a very interesting post where he, where he, where he, where he, where he, where he, where he, where he, where he, where he, What if you had investigative reporters who could short, like, let's say they discovered that some government has really fucked up. They could, they could, like, I don't know, short the market on the government's GDP in a year and then release the information and then benefit from having that, from their investigative journalism.

I don't know if you have what your reaction is to those kinds of ideas. Oh, I think that's great. I think that's great. I think that's a very obvious case of pro-social benefit of markets using the, using the, a market mechanism to, or in some ways it's kind of like providing a public good that wouldn't, you know, society otherwise wouldn't be able to produce. Getting accurate information about, you know, corporate malpractices or whatever is very valuable to society.

Anything that we can do to encourage that is good. This is the question a lot of people will be interested in, and maybe you can't comment, but is there any potential that eventually through crypto or offshoring or some other option that somebody's ability to predict will somehow be able to get reflected back on them in some sort of monetary gain outside of the, you know, play money. Oh, on our site? I think that's, I think that's, well, first of all, we are planning to do things like host tournaments with real cash prizes.

You know, that's something that we are able to offer despite being a play money product. You know, we originally started as a crypto idea before pivoting back to a W2. You know, that's funny. We're one of the first firms to pivot from Web 3 back to Web 2 for like usability, usability reasons. But, you know, creating a real money crypto offering is something that's on our back burner and something that's worth thinking about, that we're actively thinking about. It would probably be in the form of a separate product, though rather than as an addition

to our current offering. I'm curious what the usability concern was there. Is it like connecting the metamask wallet to your? account. Your current process is so easy. You can basically make a bet within, you know, 30 minutes or 30 seconds of visiting the site. I'm curious what the concern was there with crypto. I think there are several things. The first is just like onboarding, you know, most, you know, only a tiny chunk of, you know, the global population actually has, you know, created a Metamask wallet or a Solana wallet or any of these things. And the process of doing that and transferring tokens to the

wallet is actually pretty cumbersome and not yet very easy. So that's, you know, That's kind of a huge hurdle just to start with. Then you have to add in all of the other frictions associated with being a crypto platform. It takes a while for transactions to be confirmed. You have to, you know, if you're doing everything in a purely decentralized way, you'll have to sign each transaction with your wallet, stuff like that. Each of those things is just like an additional hurdle, you know, that will prevent users from, you know, being able to bet and enjoy your experience on the platform.

Yeah, not to mention transaction costs, which would reduce liquidity. Yeah, yeah, that's a big one too. So, you know, one of the things, speaking of your reputation, one of the things that seems interesting to me, my prediction over the long term is that the reputation of the market maker or market creator will matter a lot because in your website, they're the ones who get to resolve questions or resolve markets. So what is the equilibrium there? Because is it just that there's going to be a few trusted market creators who people trust to adjudicate? adjudicate what happened or will anybody be able to have to create a big trusted market? I think it'll be kind of a bimodal distribution where you'll see a few huge market creators that are high trust and have, you know, huge volumes across a lot of their markets.

And then there'll be a very long tail of smaller individuals with less of a track record and their markets will be participated on by people, you know, closer to them on the social graph, their friends or friends of friends and stuff like. that. Now, here's a question I've had for a while. Why don't companies who have, you know, a direct incentive to get the best possible information on their, you know, on themselves, on the factors affecting their business? Why aren't they using internal prediction markets if this is the best way to aggregate information? Yeah, this is a great question. So, first of all, a lot of companies have tried using prediction markets internal, including Google, GM, the CIA,

and a bunch of other firms as well. But for the most part, you find that they will use it. People will talk about it for a bit. They will even praise the benefits of prediction markets, but ultimately they'll abandon them. And I think the main reason for that, and a very Hansonian point is that people literally don't want to know the answers to a lot of questions.

So in a corporate context, that mostly manifests itself in the management, the manager not wanting to, you know, the manager choosing a course or vision for their company and then not wanting to get negative feedback about that. Even if the feedback is mostly positive, you know, the fact, or like, it still can like seed doubt on the part of employees. And, you know, the introduction of a prediction market by itself might just like lower, lower the odds that that mission will be successful. You know, even though one wouldn't think that just the addition of more information would actually change the outcome. But I would say that that's the biggest point. It steps on management's toes and they don't like that. Interesting. It's almost the opposite of his

point about consultants. So his point about consultants is that they basically put a pretty face from Harvard. They allow you to say, oh, this, you know, this highly credential person who talks well supports what I'm doing. So that's why we should go ahead and do it. Now one question I've always said about this in Sonian view is even if it's true, you would expect some firm, to do the painful thing or some managers to do the painful thing. I mean, you're a startup founder. You know that many of the most successful startup founders will go ahead and do something that is quite difficult that they don't want to do.

And we would expect over the long run for the market to be dominated by players who have done the thing that helps their company, right, out of all the thousands of companies that are out there. So why do you think in like a decade or two, all the best companies in the world, will have internal prediction markets or is the force from managers against it so strong that that's not going to happen? So I would say there are two parts. I would say the first is a rational concern on the part of managers to not use prediction

markets because it undercuts their mission. It's not merely an irrational quirk of human nature, although perhaps it is in general, but it's not an irrational quirk of the managers part in choosing not to use them for certain context. The second part is they're actually, I think the areas where prediction markets more clearly add value without distracting from the mission or hurting management are where they're used for their informational aspects or to do like market research. You know, questions where you need to like survey, a broad survey of like what consumer behavior will be, how our competitors will behave, that sort of thing. I think that's a much clear example of where prediction markets can

provide value in a corporate setting, which, you know, doesn't fall prey to most of these downsides. And then the question becomes like, why hasn't that happened yet? And I would say part of that is just like a part of that is actually just a usability concerns. It's actually very hard to create a product that's extremely simple and easy for like all of your employees to use that doesn't require too much thought but can still yield like reasonable results. And I would say part of our goal with Manifold really is to like bring the bar down lower such that more and more people can participate in prediction markets.

And it'd be like a pleasant fun and easy to use experience. Yeah, yeah, that definitely is. You know, I was about to suggest, you know, maybe it would help Zuckerberg to know, maybe it's like subsidize a market to find out how many VR devices there will be in a world by 2030 to help make, help him make his, you know, metaverse plans. But maybe he doesn't want to know that. or maybe at least he doesn't want that publicly known. So, you know, one question I have is, in what situations is it best to have a single person compound all the available knowledge? And is it, in what cases, is the best to kind of decentralize the decision-making process

by having a market? I would say that in general, like if you're making a decision in the real world, it's often very difficult to operationalize what the success criterion is down into one thing that the market can then measure and measure and be used to act upon definitively. I would say so that's kind of the biggest case for, you know, like personal discretion or like human involvement in decision making. Or in general, I think like prediction markets work best when people are creating markets on a variety of metrics and then using human intuition, to figure out what the best course of action is to proceed using that information.

I'm curious. What is your opinion about insider trading in Congress, for example? I know this is like a big debate. Do you think it serves like a useful price discovery function or too much of a hazard of adverse election? Kind of a tangential point. I'm just curious about your opinion. I would say in general, my view of insider trading is, right, I basically have Matt Levine's view is that it should be viewed as a like taking from shareholders rather than a like fairness or equity type of discussion. I do think in general like insider trading obviously does benefit price efficiency, but there are other things that we care about. We also don't want, in general, our

corporate shareholders to be profiting from, you know, from certain types of information and all those. In the case of like, you know, Congressional betting or insider trading by elected representatives, I think that's for the most part not cool. We would prefer for them to be compensated directly through salary or other things which are more open and transparent to the public rather than, you know, you know, this is kind of a way of profiting or, you know, like a roundabout way of corruption in some sense. You know, you can make a deal with some company and then trade on that. And instead of the money that never directly passes into your hands, but you're privy to this insider information. And the net effect is, you know, equivalent to this practice, which we would not normally condone. Now, one place where I'm skeptical of prediction markets is when we're talking about questions that resolve over a long period of time and which the, which there's no good base rate for.

so the market hasn't really been trained on that kind of question. One example would be, what are the odds of catastrophic AI by like 2030, which I'm sure is a question on your website. And I'm not sure how much credence I put into the prediction on this question. I mean, one, because I'm not sure why I would expect that much good information to be aggregated here in the first place. Would it just be, I mean, what is the information they're going off of?

And second, I guess more important is, Like, you know, why would somebody bet yes? Because the best case scenario, if they bet S, is they die anyways, right? They have nothing to gain if catastrophic AI happens. So in these kinds of scenarios, what do you think is the role of prediction markets? Do you have these kinds of concerns? What are your thoughts? Oh, I think, yeah, both of those concerns are very valid.

I think part of this is just like a fundamental, like, human constraint. If things are very far in the future, we care about them less. It doesn't really, you know, that's true in prediction markets, but it's also true in every other domain as well, and every other forecasting technique as well. You know, the interest rate is like a fact about human nature, or like discounting of the future is like a fundamental facet of human nature. And you can twiddle with the mechanism on the margins here or there, but I don't think it'll fundamentally change that. For your second point, though, your other point is very well taken to. that you can't bet bet on an apocalypse. You're not going to be there to collect your winnings.

The money is worth less in that universe, so you should rationally bet against it. Actually, so Brian Kaplan and Elias Urodowski actually do have a bet on an AI apocalypse. The bet is about whether there will be like, you know, catastrophic AI, I think by 2030 is the exact bet. And so the Brian pays Eliezer now, and if by 2030 there hasn't been,

hasn't bid catastrophic AI, then Eliezer pays Brian, you know, the sum that Brian paid plus more based on like the ratio of their bet, which I thought it was a, which I thought was an interesting idea. It's just going off this topic a little more, you know, one of the things that Scott Alexander brought up in one of his blog post is when you have these kinds of bets that resolve a long term, it doesn't have to be as like as far fetched as, you know, AGI.I. It could just be something like who's going to be president in 2024. he pointed out that at least at the time that he wrote it,

Dwayne Johnson had like a 9% chance of being elected president, which seems high, except why would somebody get their manifold dollars held up and a question that won't resolve for four years, or I mean, two years now, the ability of speculators to correct prices is diminished because they don't want their money to be held up in questions that won't resolve for a long time.

How are you guys dealing with that kind of? problem. I would say like so in general the best way to tackle these long-term more speculative questions is to try to break them down and address the proxy variables that are most relevant to you know to predicting their success in the future you know so instead of asking like will the AI apocalypse happen in 23rd or like in 2050 you can ask like will open AI's gbt4 like exceed you know this number on this benchmark etc or similarly for of like the rock like um instead of asking like will the rock be the president in like 12 years or whatever 20 whatever uh you could ask like what are his polling numbers today like what are his favorability ratings has he like will he indicate interest in running show interest in running

as a politician etc etc and those are much more short-term questions which you can use to you know get a sense of um uh you know of the the longer the longer term more speculative questions that you know that interest you okay so um you know Tyler Cowen has this other criticism of prediction markets um that listen these prediction markets are tied to financial markets that you actually could bet on right so i don't know if you think somebody's going to be has a higher or lower odds being president maybe that has effect on um you know GDP or something and that has effect on you know stock prices right um and so then he says well if you're so good at doing uh so good at betting in prediction markets, why don't you just bet in the financial instrument that are linked to whatever question

you're interested in? And Brian Kaplan's response to this is there's so many different things that can affect any given financial instrument that it's not, you know, it's not easy to explain, okay, because I think A about, you know, Duane Johnson becoming president, I can invest in asset B. I feel like that defense of prediction markets is a criticism of your response that you just gave where you're saying short-term prediction markets can substitute for your interest in long-term prediction markets? I would say yes and no. So like asset, you know, asset prices of, you know, of major, major financial commodities and equities and other instruments, you know, are affected by way more

factors than another prediction market on a more isolated question on some proxy variable that you care about. You know, the nice feature of prediction markets is that you really can isolate the particular risk that you care about. And even if it's just discussing like one proxy variable that's related to the overall picture, you can still get a much better understanding of the thing that you care about by picking multiple well-targeted like proxy variables and creating markets on those rather than like oil prices, you know, which tell you many things, too many things. Okay, so lay out your vision for me of like 10, 20 years, you know, we have prediction markets are not only, you know, much more liquid, more people participate in them. And it's kind of, uh, everybody kind of

knows what a prediction market is. So like people understand what it means when you say, um, you know, this prediction mark, uh, you know, Biden, I guess it wouldn't be Biden then, but whoever the president is passing this bill had, uh, huh? Uh, well, one of the many things that would need to happen other than, you know, constitutional change would be, um, major advances to longevity research. Um, oh, yeah. So what would the world look like? Um, um, uh, what would the world look like? Like if people actually cared about, you know, prediction markets and if it was like common knowledge, what the market thought about any given situation that was happening. Well, I would say, first of all, I would say that would probably be a much better world, you know, you know, across a wide variety of domains. I think it's better, better and nearly, but not all cases when people are grounded in terms of facts and like well calibrated predictions.

instead of like pure speculation or like, you know, ideologically biased thinking. But, you know, more concretely I can imagine a world where, you know, the average, like, news article, blog posts, CNN station, if that's still around in 10 or 20 years, has like an embedded prediction market on whichever topic that they're discussing. And it'll just like allow people to, you know, immediately get a sense of what like the most grounded or like, it'll immediately ground the opinions that people are hearing in fact and make it easier to have more productive conversations and ultimately allow them to better understand the world. I hope that's the case.

There's a pessimistic take that people are not consuming politics to understand what's happening and that they will almost resent you for presenting them with this kind of information. That's true. Or certainly I'm not implying that a large part or even like a majority of the consumption of political news is based on a desire for accurate information. You know, I think that would be a very, very naive view of how, you know, humans operate. But at least a small part of that is, you know, at least some portion of people's desire to consume news actually is to legitimately understand the world. You know, and insofar as people are attempting to do that, you know, prediction markets. can help.

I really hope so, and I think that actually could be true, which is very exciting. So one question I have is these trades that people do on your market, you know, 4% of the 4% of what is traded or the trade Avers winnings, they go to the market creator and 1% are just burned. Correct me if that's wrong. But that seems like a negative sum. bet, which means that are you concerned that that would reduce liquidity because people have to get over a higher threshold of confidence before they're willing to bet on any given market?

Yes, yeah. Like, fees impede do impede the efficiency of the market in some sense. You know, there are people who on the margins would trade if there were no fees who don't when there are fees. That certainly is true. But part of the reason why we have fees is like, like to encourage things that we like. You know, we have a creator fee. The creator earns a commission on trades that incentivizes them to create and resolve more markets. We currently have

a liquidity fee as well, which feeds into the liquidity pool, which you can think of as subsidizing the entire market. I'm curious, how, what is your background? So, you know, one of your co-finders is your brother. Do you guys have some sort of financial background or mathematical background? because, you know, I was looking at, you know, your technical documentation. I'm not claiming to have understood most of it. But I saw the formulas that they were there. I visually skimmed it. And how are you guys able to get into this field?

So I guess I studied computer science in school. Then I went to work for SIG or Susquehanna. It's an option trading firm for a little bit. Then I left to go work for my friends. like Robo Advisor startup where I wrote their like, you know, their portfolio optimizing software. Yeah, so I have some financial experience as well. And all three of us are technical, you know, and also have a previous background doing other entrepreneurial things as well, too. So we're all we're kind of like full stack entrepreneurs, I guess you could say.

I can you talk a little bit about your previous entrepreneurial experience? I think listeners might be interested. Sure. So right before this, my brother and co-founder, James and I were working on our app called Throne. It's a subscription group chat app for online creators. So people like you or like Instagram creators or DJs or anyone who's built up an audience online, the idea was that they can set up a private group chat where their audience where they're paying a subscription fee to join. And basically, basically, Basically, the premise of our, you know, app is that we provide a much better chatting experience for larger groups. So it's designed to accommodate, like, the creator's entire audience and make that a seamless experience. Yeah, I have a friend who has a popular fantasy football channel, and he has, you know, he has a very profitable Patreon where basically from the point of the Patreon is it'll give you the link to the invite to the Discord. which seems condoluted. And this product, where you're just basically combining those two services,

that seemed very useful. So what happened with that? It's still going a slight. Basically, we couldn't get the growth that we were hoping for. The ultimate cause is it's kind of too late. Like the creator market is already saturated with all different sorts of tools. Most creators are already monetizing one way or another and aren't keen on moving monetizing using a new platform.

So when it comes to the manifold markets, I mean, the idea for having prediction markets, even the idea of having prediction markets to play money, I believe, has been around for a long time, right? What took so long for somebody to make a user experience that was so comfortable as yours? Or is there something else that, you know, prevented somebody for making a manifold market much earlier? Yeah, I would say the other key piece of the puzzle that other people were missing is the idea of user-resolved markets. which on the surface sounds a little bit crazy, that you just allow anyone to come and create a market on any question

where they are also the judge of that question and can resolve it in any way that they want. That obviously opens the door to fraud and abuse and people taking advantage of the system. And the fact that there is a possibility of fraud basically has prevented other people from even exploring this option. Instead, they're opting for oricals or centralized authorities deciding the outcome of all markets.

But of course, that severely limits the scalability and reach, you know, of a prediction market platform if users can't go on and create their own thing. So it's really realizing that user resolved markets actually can work that let us let us down this path. You know, there is a small amount of fraud, but it's actually quite small and manageable. If you, you know, allow users to choose which markets to participate in, they for the most part are making pretty good decisions about where to allocate their time and money. There's this great essay called Unix is worse is better. I don't know if you've gotten a chance to look at that. The basic point the author makes is, you know, if you ask like, why has Unix been so successful, you know, you can say, oh, the, some of the features

and some of the design decisions are arbitrary. They're somewhat inoptimal in certain situations. And then, but then you, it seems that maybe it was those bugs that actually allow Unix to be the kind of thing that, can actually run on real computers. Maybe it's not, maybe it's not optimal from the, uh, the perspective of somebody who wants something super elegant and beautiful. Um, and, you know, Garon has a really good blog post about this, uh, Bitcoin is worse is better, um, where he makes the same point about, uh, you know, Bitcoin like some of the, I'm not remembering the details

right now, but some of the, uh, you know, some of the actual constants involving like, you know, block size or whatever, they're pretty arbitrary. But the fact that just somebody just put the out of the arbitrary numbers, um, meant that innovations, that could have been around years before in terms of the cryptographic tools, actually got instantiated in a product like Bitcoin. And it kind of seems like you're taking a similar attitude towards prediction markets, even if it's somewhat arbitrary to let users resolve markets, you know, that's better than having some sort of Oracle structure,

which is super convoluted and hard to use and may sound good in theory, but is kind of impractical as something that people want to use. Yeah, that's exactly. I think the most important thing for, you know, not just for us and not just for prediction markets, but for creating like a usable platform is making sure that the key mechanism is something simple and easy to understand more so than handling every possible edge case perfectly. You know, as long as it's the core experience is extremely simple and easy to use and user friendly. you know, that matters much more than like the 1% of cases, you know, where, you know.

But I'm curious if this is something you learned at your previous startup. Did you guys make this mistake and now you've learned to avoid it? Or curious how you came to that realization? You know, I don't know. I don't know that I can think of a good example that's directly relevant. Although we did like simplicity of, I guess like both the business model and our user interface for our previous chat app were big considerations. You know, the idea of having, or like a subscription model is kind of like the minimum viable

business for like a creator to support themselves in a real way over time. That might be one manifestation of this principle in action, but I don't know. Okay. So one concern somebody could have about manifold markets is, you know, you said you're giving out 1,000 manifold dollars. Somebody could, you know, just, I don't mean, maybe you'd make a bot, that I'm not giving me anybody ideas, but just create a thousand different accounts, make different trades on all of them, and or make a sequence of different trades on all of them. And in one of them, they just make, you know, a series of the best trades that anybody has ever made on the platform.

And now they're on the top of the later board. It's certainly true that if you're giving away free money, you know, that's not a, you know, economically sound mechanism. We currently do do some things to prevent abuse and like bot behavior. I'm not going to tell you what those things are. If we end up open sourcing our code, though, the cat will be out of the bag. You can, you know, see for yourself what abuse practices we have in place. I would say that we're not necessarily committed to maintaining our, you know, free giveaway or like free sign-up bonus indefinitely. You know, part of that, that's definitely partially a, you know, a growth and like just starting golf thing. In the beginning, most of our users have been very well behaved and haven't abused this system.

You know, if more and more people, if Manifold becomes like a key nexus for people trying to weigh in on the future, we may have to be more strict with our policies. It kind of reminds me the PayPal story where they were giving like $10, $20 bonuses for people for signing up. And it basically meant they got exponential growth, but they were losing money faster. I guess in this case, you're not like losing real money. but I don't know, maybe you're diluting the diluting the reputational value that the best people in the leaderboard have, at least for now, maybe. Yeah, I would say one of the other things that we're interested in, or like the concept of a global leaderboard becomes less important over time the larger our site gets. You know, a lot of the markets that people bet on our personal markets or markets between friends, you know, what you as an individual care about in terms of, you know, ranking who the top traders or predictors are really is not all of the markets that we have

on our platform, but the subset of markets that are of interest to you. We actually just remove, or like we used to have this feature called communities where you could create a community centered around a collection of different markets and we would show the leaderboard just for those markets. You know, and that's a way of judging, you know, or it's a way of assessing the ability, the ability and skill of predictors within some particular domain that you care about rather than globally. We'll probably bring that back in some capacity in the future. Can you give an example of that? Like I guess something like fantasy football. Yeah. So one thing you might care about is like who is the best like Russia, Ukraine, who is like

the best like, you know, like geopolitical and war predictor. You know, and what the one way to assess that would to just be to like handpick a few markets about the invade, about, about, the invasion and the subsequent course of events during the war and then just see how much profit people have made within those markets. And I think that'll actually give you a reasonable estimate of who the top predictors are there. Versus just like a global thing, you know, for a while, one of our like top markets on our site was about whether this guy would allow, like, whether this stray cat would allow it's like this random human to pay. pet it. You know, totally random stuff like that. You know, if you're, if you're trying to assess who

the best, like, geopolitical thinkers are, who the best economic thinkers are, you may not care about the straight cat. But a lot of people really do care about the straight cat in other contexts. So it's a fine balance of strike. Another interesting part of your platform is so people can buy more play money. And I guess the concern is even within these, even within these subdomains, where people are being compared, that, you know, the actual, the actual proficiency of a person could be distorted by the fact that somebody else could just buy more manifold dollars. And as a result, maybe able to have a higher profit. I guess you can measure it maybe by, you know, percentage gain on the total amount of money or something. But yeah, I'm curious on

your thoughts about this. So in general, I'm a pretty pro-efficient markets. You know, if you think about what's happening when a whale comes in and buys up a huge amount of money and like bets it on the wrong side, what they're essentially doing is just like providing a huge subsidy and bonus to the people who are actually correct. You know, markets are a mechanism which is like the most efficient way of solving the whale problem. If you are too much money and you are not very smart and are very confident in your views of the world, like the market, have a very fast and easy solution for you to solve, you know, to obviate that problem where you will no longer have so much capital, you know, to, you know, throw about. There's a direct analogy to this

actually, as I'm sure we're aware in, you know, like real markets where like a pension fund or some other sort of big fund needs to like rebalance its books or something. So it'll need to just like dump a bunch of stock. And, you know, liquidity providers can make money off the big. big trades that these big funds need to make. So I guess then you wouldn't be, you wouldn't be interested in schemes like, I guess, quadratic, like, it's some decaying, some decaying value of the manifold dollars that you can buy in one account. So like the marginal, the marginal manifold dollar costs more than the one before it.

You think this would inhibit price discovery, right? Yeah, although I have toyed with some other interesting, like, monetary schemes in the past. So one idea I had is introducing demurridge or, like, basically negative interest rates on cash balances. So, like, you could imagine a world where, like, where your purchasing power kind of erodes over time. You know, if you made a bunch of, like, really good predictions this year, you know, it's not necessarily the case that you should be, like, rewarded by, you know, having all of that cash forever, you know, maybe some portion of that uninvested, those uninvested cash balances erodes by, you know, 20% a year or something like that. I think it's a really cool idea in principle, but in practice, like users absolutely hate, you know, losing money for

any reason at all. So it's kind of like a non-starter. But it's interesting to think about. Sorry, I'm not sure I understood. If the re-explanation is unnecessary, then we could just cut it out of the final, but just from my benefit, can you, can you clarify what you were? Sure. So, so the idea is like, um, uh, at certain times you'll have just like uninvested cash, you know, that's sitting in your account. Yeah, yeah. Um, the, the idea is to just like charge you, charge you for that. So charge, charge a sales tax at the rate of like 20% a year, but like maybe like once per once per day at midnight, you lose, you know, whatever, whatever amount that is. A small fraction, a small fraction. A small fraction of your your uninvested cash. Okay. So, you know, one thing that makes a financial market

is you have these big firms that are putting up in large amounts of capital to recruit the top talent in the world because it's worth it for them. You know, they're running like these supercomputer simulations. And, you know, like it's expensive to do all this stuff, right? but it's worth it if you're getting like 0.001% of a trillion dollar market. In the case where you have play money, what is the incentive for, I get that people who are hobbyist or are in other ways motivated to do this and choose to do it and choose to engage in it themselves, what would incentivize somebody to put in the kind of effort it takes to have efficient financial markets and, you know, cost and time and so on.

Yeah. So I would say that in general, people are willing to put a lot of time and effort into virtual economies irrespective of financial gains. You know, if you look at things like World of Warcraft or earlier like Second Life, which has like virtual real estate, people are willing to, you know, invest the equivalent of hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars in, in this game world. I feel people's, you know, People's ability to drill in and focus and work on things that are of interest to them, you know, is just like a very, very powerful force, even if it's not directly tied to a financial payout. So what is the point by which Manfold's own internal decision making will be informed by prediction markets involving, I don't know, the firm's predictions about the firm?

Oh, it is already. We, you know, we actively create markets on all sorts of things, which are, of interest to us. So most recently we created a market on whether we would be able to complete our fundraising round by the end of April. You know, that was a cool market. The market believed in us for the most part.

I don't think we like fell lower than like 85% somewhere around there. But we, you know, internal, we actually do try to dog food our markets as much as possible. We have a new market now and whether we'll be able to onboard three employees, I think before the end of June, something like that.

You know, that's a number that we like try to keep our eyes on. I guess probably the first big case were like the market actually, you know, substantively informed our decision about how to act as a company was an early market we created on whether we should try to monetize by selling the fake, by selling our play money. You know, we initially we weren't sure whether that would be a good thing to do at all, whether users would hate it or it would seem scammie or whatever. But we created a prediction market on this subject. I think phrased in conditional terms that if we did introduce this,

if we introduced the feature, would we keep it for some period of time? And the market seemed to think that we would. So that actually was a factor which played into our decision. Yeah, I'm asking these questions in probably the wrong order. So this is really one of the initial questions I should ask you. but talk me through the timeline of developing manifold market. So how long ago was it launched? And like what you said in the beginning it was supposed to be based on crypto?

When did you guys change your mind? What is the timeline here? Yeah. So this company began long, long ago, way back in December of 2021. Yeah. Yeah, it's a very new company. Basically decided to ditch crypto after like, maybe like a week, a week's worth of, you know, speculation and research.

Mostly because we, or part of it is that we just thought we could build a play money prototype very quickly and we could just like test that and see, see what the experience is like. And if we wanted to, we could continue further on into crypto. And partially is just based off, you know, reading about the, you know, regulatory nightmare that is prediction markets and crypto, and partially as the usability concerns with crypto. But basically, we all, like in the month of December, we came up with the original idea. We applied and received the ACX grant from Scott Alexander, and we timed it such that right when the grant announcement came out, we had a working prototype

of our prediction market system ready to go. And then we were able to onboard a bunch of users from the ACX community immediately, which formed the base of our platform. And since then, we've been growing and, you know, responding to user concerns and improving our site to be ever more usable. I know you guys use something called

Dynamic Param Mutual betting system. I looked into the paper. I think I understood like maybe a quarter of it. So is, uh, what, was it like a experience, uh, of learning as you went or is it something you guys were already familiar with? No, definitely the former. You know, we, we had heard, I had heard of uniswap and some other mechanisms. I had heard of like Hanson's log market scoring rule and some other things, but I didn't

actually delve into the details until quite recently. You know, originally, we actually came up with the idea for, um, dynamic parmutual, uh, out thinking about it from first principles. And then we later, like, I went back through the literature and read a bunch of papers and realized that it was called dynamic paramutual and found a more elegant implementation of a dynamic paramutual system based, you know, based on a quadratic cost function that I hadn't considered previously. Yeah, you'll have to talk me through it over dinner the next time. Yeah, so you mentioned that you are hiring. Maybe, maybe, maybe it are some people in my audience who might be interested.

So you want to talk about what kinds of rules you're interested in hiring for, other kinds of things that might be involved in recruiting? Sure, yeah, yeah. So right now we're looking to onboard a few people to our team. We're looking for full stack developers who preferably have front end, a lot of front end and potentially React experience. We're looking for a community manager. It would be someone to help us manage our Discord,

help write blog posts, help with our substack, help reach out to people on social media and organize online events. You know, someone with, you know, a previous background in doing this at a startup would be great, but we're open to people from other backgrounds as well. And then we're looking for a head of growth or someone who has, you know, experience scaling up, scaling up an early to midstage startup. You know, we're looking for, you know, someone who, you know, who's, who's, who's, who's, who, who's helped, you know, take the company from, you know, like, to like one, like $1 to $10 million annual recurring revenue or around like 50,000 monthly active users, something, somewhere in that

neighborhood. But yeah, if you, if you are interested in prediction markets and Manifold in particular, I encourage you to reach out to us. You can either email me at job or email us at jobs at Manifold.markets or me personally, Steven at Manifold. that markets. Excellent, excellent. And any other topics involved with prediction markets or manifold that we have not discussed yet that you want to touch on? I guess one of the things that we've seen from launching this site is that users have come up with all sorts of exotic ways to

use prediction markets that we hadn't previously considered. So part of that or like prediction markets obviously can be used on, you know, predicting the future basic yes or no questions. But some exotic things you can do are like getting users to help like research topics for you of you know you can create a market on phrase these types of things in a market-based way and then people can propose certain answers and other users can bet on them that's an interesting feature of our site people have hacked our platform to do things like create lotteries to play games we did manifold plays wordel where we created a series of prediction markets on which word we should guess next you know people yeah they're they're just like all sorts of other things non-prediction type things

you can do with a with this market mechanism which are really cool that is an interesting idea um i'm not sure how that was conducted but like i could imagine uh you know researchers saying um will my conclusion on a paper of this question be um x or y and um and then to move the market somebody would not only have to bed but also like maybe put in the common section the data that makes him think it's X or Y, which can be the basis of the paper. So you're basically getting research assistance. That, yeah, that is very interesting. Oh, yeah. Yeah, I would say, relatedly, one of the new types of markets we've introduced is this concept of a free response market. You know, so in addition to a yes or no market where you're just betting on something

will happen, we have this idea of a free response market where you ask a broad open-ended question and people can submit an answer. And when they're submitting an answer, they're also placing a bet on that answer and other users can bid, you know, bid up, you know, different answers that the market creator will then, will then choose, you know, and that really opens up the, you know, the space of possibilities towards allowing, you know, much wider, wider array of questions. Stephen, thanks so much for coming on the podcast. And yeah, so that's manifold. dot markets, right? Any other places or links that people should be aware of? I think I think that's the big one. Manifold. Markets, you can join right now and we'll give you a thousand manifold dollars

to bed on any market you like or create your own. Excellent. Thanks so much, Stephen. All right, thank you.