[i] Mark contract as gambling, not unlisted. Any contract can be marked as gambling. When marked as gambling, its embedding is averaged into the gambling embedding. Upon creation, any contract close enough to the gambling embedding is also marketd as gambling.
- [s] A good idea, but from a regulatory perspective we shouldn’t label anything as gambling.
- Any other euphemisms?
- [i] non-predictive [s] +1
- [c] meta. recursive.
- markets about whether ball will land on red or black are actually ok. main issue is with markets that incentivize their own activity, which games the metrics and creates incentives that we didn’t design that might not be very fun.
- [J] Kind of agree.
- When marked as gambling, leagues profits and bonuses discounted.
- [c] think it should either be 0 or not - easier to reason about
- [i] sounds good
- Saves Salty time bc he won’t have to do this, people can gamble if they want, and other people can just hide the market if they don’t want to see them
- [c] may cause people to make gambling markets worded more creatively. I think it will decrease a lot of low effort ones though
- [s] +1
- [i] If they get too confusing people will probably ignore them
- [s] I still think part of the best long term solution is having House-sponsored daily markets: Quick markets
- [J] Deciding which are non-predictive markets will be a never-ending task…
- [J] Is using embeddings better than having community member tag all these markets?
- [s] maybe auto-add to a group instead
DECISION: Ian to try this