In a recent announcement, Manifold Markets say they will change the exchange rate for your play-money (called "Mana") from 1:100 to 1:1000. Importantly, one of the ways to use this Mana is to do charity donations.

TLDR: The CTA here is to log in to your Manifold account and donate currency you have on your account before May 1st. It is a smooth process, and would take you <30 seconds if you know what charity you want to support.

Donate your Mana

There are multiple charities available for donations, that EAs tend to donate to, such as:

  • GiveWell
  • Rethink Priorities
  • EA Funds Animal Welfare Fund
  • EA Funds Long-Term Future Fund
  • The Humane League
  • Against Malaria Foundation
  • Shrimp Welfare Project
  • ... and many more.

It is not 100% clear to what extent the donation is indeed counterfactual[1], but I believe there is reason to believe you can have positive influence through choosing which charities end up getting this money.

If you I) have an account with Mana on it, II) regularly do charity donations with your own money, then donating your balance now seems to dominate other options. 

If you actually want to have some currency on Manifold to make bets with, you can buy it back next week for a cheaper rate than your current donation. I am somewhat unsure of this: it's possible that the value of one charity getting the money over another is not enough to outstrip the degree of counterfactuality discount described in the first footnote. The reason I am still writing this post, is that I think many people have currency laying around that they never plan to use – but might be a few $10s or $100s of charity donations, and 10x more valuable than it will be next week.

Worth noting (thanks @CalebW for highlighting in comment) is that if you are locked in to positions that are hard to exit, you can get in touch with admins to help resolve your situation more satisfactorily without having to sell at crazy rates.

I apologize in advance for the possibility of:

  • Claims about Manifold's future that they change their mind about.
  • Mistaken use of terminology from my side.
  • Mistaken speculations about donation counterfactuality.
  • ... other mistakes.
  1. ^

    My understanding: Since the money donated to charity is from a Future Fund grant (?), it can only be used that way rather than to support other business activities. So it might be likely that the allocated funds would eventually go to some charity regardless, and your influence is which one.

84

4
0
6

Reactions

4
0
6
Comments23


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:
Austin
17
0
0
1
1

Thanks for posting this, Henri! I'm happy to answer any questions you might have regarding the changes here, the donation program, the future of Manifold or anything else like that.

Very briefly:

  • The move to 1000:1 is prompted by the fact that we have currently roughly $1.2m of mana issued against $1.5m cash in bank. As we move to sweepstakes, we want to make sure we can fully back this and still have a healthy runway. (fwiw, I think currency rate change is a terrible solution to this and think there's a small chance, 15%?, that we can avoid this)
  • Our donation program has originally funded by a Future Fund grant with $500k, so donations were coming out of that pot. However, I think of mana donations as counterfactual (I took my $100k salary in mana!), with the idea that Manifold itself would back donation flows once the initial 500k has been spent down.
  • I myself have recently left Manifold to focus on Manifund, which we are expanding into an independent grantmaker; but am still close with the Manifold team

The move to 1000:1 is prompted by the fact that we have currently roughly $1.2m of mana issued against $1.5m cash in bank. As we move to sweepstakes, we want to make sure we can fully back this and still have a healthy runway. (fwiw, I think currency rate change is a terrible solution to this and think there's a small chance, 15%?, that we can avoid this)

  1. This seems like a bad situation to have gotten into. Did this happen because manifold didn't plan well or was it Future fund related? If my mana is gonna take a haircut the difference seems pretty important. 
  2. Personally I like manifold a lot and if they said "hey we screwed up (or were screwed) and so don't have assets how can we figure this out" I would be pretty amenable to that. I know it's easy to see this as a run on the bank, but the only way to do so is to donate the money, so you have an unusually charitable group to negotiate with. I really liked the way they didn't trash Mr King in the Whales vs Minnows thing. Forgiveness is real and they have a reasonable amount of my good will to play with in situations where people screw up. 
  3. But with very short notice saying "we're doing this" feels like I am being defected against and leaves me a lot more likely to donate everything (I have $320 on manifold). Feels like this kind of behaviour should be punished.
  4. Also why the need for a 10x devaluation. wouldn't this also work if they devalued by like 30%? Not sure why 1/10 was the right number.

It's easy to see this as capital controls etc etc, but the only place the money can go is to charities and if things collapse manifold may die and I don't want that. In both cases, I am differently motivated than if manifold is a faceless bank.

Best of luck on Manifund, though it's a shame you've left manifold cos I liked manifold and value is fragile. Hope you're well!

  1. (Briefly: we got into this via a loose monetary policy involving lots of printing mana for bonuses and subsidies, in order to encourage engagement. But there's historical precedent for this - eg Paypal famously gave away $10 to every user to get their network effects started)

    I think our monetary situation is actually fine. It's tempting to look at things from a cash balance perspective because it's simple, but that's pretty naive. This post from CommonCog has informed my thinking of these kinds of things:

    "People with limited understanding of business think that business is all about making profits. But those who actually run businesses know that running a business is all about managing cash flows."

    Manifold users don't actually cash out that much, so we shouldn't actually need that much cash on hand. Another point Zvi raised is that very few online sportsbooks maintain enough cash on hand to fully pay out all users -- it just doesn't make business sense to do this, you grow more slowly if you commit to holding extra cash.

    The equity value of Manifold dominates the cash considerations (we last raised at $40m valuation), so from our business perspective we can eventually back assets just by raising more. The point of this pivot is to drive enough interest & mana purchases to get us to a Series A, after all.
  2. Shrug, as above, I don't think we've really historically screwed up; I'm in the weird position of simultaneously trying to talk my cofounders out of this 1000:1 thing and trying to publicly explain our actions at the same time...
  3. Yeah, I agree the short notice is very bad. I think the rationale is that the Google Form for loans below will basically be given to anyone who reasonably applies, so our users shouldn't be that badly affected.
  4. Yeah, I was already pretty unhappy when I first heard the proposal to be 200:1; 1000:1 seemed much worse. Idk, again, I think it's a bad idea.

I tend to agree with your co-founders on this one.

Manifold users don't actually cash out that much, so we shouldn't actually need that much cash on hand. 

I am not sure that the behavior of past Manifold users in a play-money economy where the only cash-out was to charity is a reliable guide to how future users will react to in a ~real-money environment.

Another point Zvi raised is that very few online sportsbooks maintain enough cash on hand to fully pay out all users -- it just doesn't make business sense to do this, you grow more slowly if you commit to holding extra cash.

 

When we're talking about play money potentially redeemable for charitable donations, that is one thing, especially where the vast majority was ~freely obtained (as opposed to being purchased with cash. If people can't donate play money they were largely given for free, that doesn't keep me up at night too much. It's something different where the quasi-cash was largely purchased with real cash (or obtained in wagers of quasi-cash that was largely purchased with real cash). In the latter case, I think you have to be prepared for the risk of a bank run.

 


The equity value of Manifold dominates the cash considerations (we last raised at $40m valuation), so from our business perspective we can eventually back assets just by raising more. 

Maybe, but conditioned on there being a run on the bank, Manifold equity would not provide a solid backstop for customer claims. If you are in a bankrun situation, there is a pretty decent possibility that Manifold equity is either illiquid or ~worthless. You might be hard-pressed to find buyers either because of the underlying facts that led to the bankrun or due to skepticism about the value of a business whose customers are in a panicked rush for the door. 

Moreover, the base rate of young startup failure is pretty high, so there could be a number of scenarios in which a run makes sense. If I thought Manifold might be going under soon, and my quasi-cash was backed only to a limited extent, I think I'd rather exchange my quasi-cash for real cash ASAP. 

Perhaps you could get an irrevocable line of credit for the next ~2 years backed by a certain amount of equity? If you can, then that could back the quasi-cash liabilities. If you can't, is evidence that you can't get a sophisticated lender to accept the equity as collateral also evidence that Manifold users shouldn't accept it as backing? 

I guess another way of saying this is that I think Manifold should treat quasi-cash holders as ~depositors, and thus should be unwilling to expose them to more than a tiny risk of loss due to anything other than bad trades on Manifold.

Manifold users don't actually cash out that much, so we shouldn't actually need that much cash on hand

This omits why Manifold users didn't cash out much: return rates were unsustainably high. Ponzi schemes manage cash flow at the expense of profit

Yes, although this was much more OK with play money than it would be with quasi-cash. Especially since Manifold's heavy use of the play-money printing press wasn't a secret.

Not the only reason though. The only way to cash out was donations and some people didn't want to.

Thanks for sharing this on the Forum! 
If you (the reader) have donated your mana because of this post, I'd love it if you put a react on this comment. 

I disagree-voted to indicate that I did not donate my mana because of this post (I use Manifold sometimes but I have only a trivial amount of mana)

Relatedly, I would note that past comments on the Forum about trading on Manifold as a potentially effective way to steer money to charity may no longer be valid (or may be less valid) after May 1 than they were prior to the announcement being made. The reason is that Manifold's "pivot" requires a much more controlled supply of its play money (mana), making Manifold at least close to a zero-sum game for traders. In contrast, a past comment may have been written when the mana printing presses were in high gear, at which time the expected value (in mana) of trading on Manifold was meaningfully positive due to subsidies, free mana, etc.

From the discord: "Manifold can provide medium-term loans to users with larger invested balances to donate to charity now provided they agree to not exit their markets in a disorderly fashion or engage in any other financial shenanigans (interpreted very broadly). Feel free to DM for more details on your particular case."

I DM'd yesterday; today I received a mana loan for my invested amount, for immediate donation, due for repayment Jan 2, 2025, with a requirement to not sell out of large positions before May.

There's now a Google form: https://forms.gle/XjegTMHf7oZVdLZF7

Thanks, I found this a helpful nudge, and wouldn't have known about this otherwise :)

Same, I only had ~800 mana free but wouldn't have realized to donate it otherwise, and it only took a minute.

Maybe let the forum know here (Toby's comment above) :)

Also, there's a statement in a publicly-accessible stand up meeting summary (speaker unknown) that "I also tentatively think Manifund wants to end the charity program after this"

https://manifoldmarkets.notion.site/Standup-de82dcce7411478fa52048c229a2eda2

(screenshot on file in my email)

Speaker there was me - I think there's like a ~70% chance we decide to end the charity program after this round of payments, tentatively as of May 15 or or end of May.

The primary reason is that the real money cash outs should supersede it, and running the charity program is operationally kind of annoying. The charity program is neither a core focus for Manifold or Manifund, so we might not want to keep it up. Will make a broader announcement if this ends up being the case.

Agree that real money cash outs would largely supersede this, but that's conditional on them actually happening and sticking around. It doesn't sound to me like real money is likely to roll out next month, though.

Yeah - though in practice the charity payouts are transferred once a quarter anyways, so a month or two delay in rolling out payouts wouldn't change the results much.

In any case, definitely think now is a great time as any to do your charity allocations, given our general uncertainty on how all of this will look!

(I'm pretty bullish on sweepstakes payouts actually happening, I think like 80% chance this year. If they don't, then probably something like the charity program would make sense again)

If incremental funding to Manifold isn't 10x more effective than effective charities, somebody should fund 10x cheaper rebuys for anyone who is planning to keep their mana through the devaluation, so their current balance can go to charity at 100:1.

Welcome to the forum simoj!

I think this might not be a great idea, due to uncertainties in what would happen with the allocated charity budget if it doesn't get donated right now. It's quite possible that the counterfactual is low, so we should probably not invest more into the ecosystem at this point — in particular when things are so up in the air about the future of the platform.

Nice, just donated my $31.23 worth of Mana to GiveWell! Wouldn't have known to do that otherwise, and took about 30 seconds. Thanks for the post :)

Maybe let the forum team know here (Toby's comment above) :)

Thanks for the tip! Just donated my mana to GiveDirectly.

Curated and popular this week
Paul Present
 ·  · 28m read
 · 
Note: I am not a malaria expert. This is my best-faith attempt at answering a question that was bothering me, but this field is a large and complex field, and I’ve almost certainly misunderstood something somewhere along the way. Summary While the world made incredible progress in reducing malaria cases from 2000 to 2015, the past 10 years have seen malaria cases stop declining and start rising. I investigated potential reasons behind this increase through reading the existing literature and looking at publicly available data, and I identified three key factors explaining the rise: 1. Population Growth: Africa's population has increased by approximately 75% since 2000. This alone explains most of the increase in absolute case numbers, while cases per capita have remained relatively flat since 2015. 2. Stagnant Funding: After rapid growth starting in 2000, funding for malaria prevention plateaued around 2010. 3. Insecticide Resistance: Mosquitoes have become increasingly resistant to the insecticides used in bednets over the past 20 years. This has made older models of bednets less effective, although they still have some effect. Newer models of bednets developed in response to insecticide resistance are more effective but still not widely deployed.  I very crudely estimate that without any of these factors, there would be 55% fewer malaria cases in the world than what we see today. I think all three of these factors are roughly equally important in explaining the difference.  Alternative explanations like removal of PFAS, climate change, or invasive mosquito species don't appear to be major contributors.  Overall this investigation made me more convinced that bednets are an effective global health intervention.  Introduction In 2015, malaria rates were down, and EAs were celebrating. Giving What We Can posted this incredible gif showing the decrease in malaria cases across Africa since 2000: Giving What We Can said that > The reduction in malaria has be
Rory Fenton
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
Cross-posted from my blog. Contrary to my carefully crafted brand as a weak nerd, I go to a local CrossFit gym a few times a week. Every year, the gym raises funds for a scholarship for teens from lower-income families to attend their summer camp program. I don’t know how many Crossfit-interested low-income teens there are in my small town, but I’ll guess there are perhaps 2 of them who would benefit from the scholarship. After all, CrossFit is pretty niche, and the town is small. Helping youngsters get swole in the Pacific Northwest is not exactly as cost-effective as preventing malaria in Malawi. But I notice I feel drawn to supporting the scholarship anyway. Every time it pops in my head I think, “My money could fully solve this problem”. The camp only costs a few hundred dollars per kid and if there are just 2 kids who need support, I could give $500 and there would no longer be teenagers in my town who want to go to a CrossFit summer camp but can’t. Thanks to me, the hero, this problem would be entirely solved. 100%. That is not how most nonprofit work feels to me. You are only ever making small dents in important problems I want to work on big problems. Global poverty. Malaria. Everyone not suddenly dying. But if I’m honest, what I really want is to solve those problems. Me, personally, solve them. This is a continued source of frustration and sadness because I absolutely cannot solve those problems. Consider what else my $500 CrossFit scholarship might do: * I want to save lives, and USAID suddenly stops giving $7 billion a year to PEPFAR. So I give $500 to the Rapid Response Fund. My donation solves 0.000001% of the problem and I feel like I have failed. * I want to solve climate change, and getting to net zero will require stopping or removing emissions of 1,500 billion tons of carbon dioxide. I give $500 to a policy nonprofit that reduces emissions, in expectation, by 50 tons. My donation solves 0.000000003% of the problem and I feel like I have f
LewisBollard
 ·  · 8m read
 · 
> How the dismal science can help us end the dismal treatment of farm animals By Martin Gould ---------------------------------------- Note: This post was crossposted from the Open Philanthropy Farm Animal Welfare Research Newsletter by the Forum team, with the author's permission. The author may not see or respond to comments on this post. ---------------------------------------- This year we’ll be sharing a few notes from my colleagues on their areas of expertise. The first is from Martin. I’ll be back next month. - Lewis In 2024, Denmark announced plans to introduce the world’s first carbon tax on cow, sheep, and pig farming. Climate advocates celebrated, but animal advocates should be much more cautious. When Denmark’s Aarhus municipality tested a similar tax in 2022, beef purchases dropped by 40% while demand for chicken and pork increased. Beef is the most emissions-intensive meat, so carbon taxes hit it hardest — and Denmark’s policies don’t even cover chicken or fish. When the price of beef rises, consumers mostly shift to other meats like chicken. And replacing beef with chicken means more animals suffer in worse conditions — about 190 chickens are needed to match the meat from one cow, and chickens are raised in much worse conditions. It may be possible to design carbon taxes which avoid this outcome; a recent paper argues that a broad carbon tax would reduce all meat production (although it omits impacts on egg or dairy production). But with cows ten times more emissions-intensive than chicken per kilogram of meat, other governments may follow Denmark’s lead — focusing taxes on the highest emitters while ignoring the welfare implications. Beef is easily the most emissions-intensive meat, but also requires the fewest animals for a given amount. The graph shows climate emissions per tonne of meat on the right-hand side, and the number of animals needed to produce a kilogram of meat on the left. The fish “lives lost” number varies significantly by