Hide table of contents

Manifold is hosting a prediction tournament over which four essay submissions in the Cause Exploration Prize will win.

The top 20 traders by profit get rewards proportional to their profits, out of a $1000 prize pool.

To make this we scraped 131 151 submissions under the Cause Exploration Prizes tag
Let me know if we missed any!

Why we're doing this

We'd like to eventually build a page for people to invest in projects that produce public goods (as in a market for impact certificates). Betting on projects is not the same thing as investing in them, but they rhyme.

Consider this a low-stakes practice round for impact certificates - you'll be able to practice forecasting impact, and Manifold will be able to figure out some technical, design, product, and ethical issues with forecasting impact before we build a product for people to invest in impact for real.

How to participate

  1. Go to manifold.markets and sign up with you google account if you haven't already
    1. New users start with 1000 mana (play currency, equivalent to $10 USD)
  2. Go to the CEP Tournament group and search for the market corresponding to a submission you want to bet in
    1. You can only search the titles. If you want to, like, search for submissions in a cause area, it's better to search on this forum than on Manifold.

Trading Tips

The prior any particular essay wins is 4/151 or 2.6%

Don't just consider whether you like or dislike a cause, but what other people will think Open Phil thinks will be a good cause. While being a "value bettor" is one way to profit, you can also profit by correctly anticipating market sentiment and selling your position when the market moves in a profitable direction.

It's a bad idea to bet all your mana on one thing.

If you strongly believe in a project and want to bet a lot on it, you may want to leave a large limit order so you don't bet the market past the probability you think it should be. Especially if the market is very new, small bets will move the probability a lot which will cut into your profits (this is called slippage).

If you're very certain that a market is at the precisely right probability, consider adding limit orders both over and under the current probability.

These markets trade using mana, the same play currency that's used in the rest of Manifold, which means that established users with existing success have an advantage, since the more you bet, the more profit (or loss) you make. However, you can buy more mana, and this is more cost effective for EAs than non-EAs because mana can only be cashed out as charity donations.

13

0
0

Reactions

0
0
Comments1


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

The Cause Exploration Prize has ended, but we just released a similar tournament for ClearerThinking.org 's regrant project. Details here:  https://manifold.markets/group/clearer-thinking-regrants/about

Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 5m read
 · 
[Cross-posted from my Substack here] If you spend time with people trying to change the world, you’ll come to an interesting conundrum: Various advocacy groups reference previous successful social movements as to why their chosen strategy is the most important one. Yet, these groups often follow wildly different strategies from each other to achieve social change. So, which one of them is right? The answer is all of them and none of them. This is because many people use research and historical movements to justify their pre-existing beliefs about how social change happens. Simply, you can find a case study to fit most plausible theories of how social change happens. For example, the groups might say: * Repeated nonviolent disruption is the key to social change, citing the Freedom Riders from the civil rights Movement or Act Up! from the gay rights movement. * Technological progress is what drives improvements in the human condition if you consider the development of the contraceptive pill funded by Katharine McCormick. * Organising and base-building is how change happens, as inspired by Ella Baker, the NAACP or Cesar Chavez from the United Workers Movement. * Insider advocacy is the real secret of social movements – look no further than how influential the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights was in passing the Civil Rights Acts of 1960 & 1964. * Democratic participation is the backbone of social change – just look at how Ireland lifted a ban on abortion via a Citizen’s Assembly. * And so on… To paint this picture, we can see this in action below: Source: Just Stop Oil which focuses on…civil resistance and disruption Source: The Civic Power Fund which focuses on… local organising What do we take away from all this? In my mind, a few key things: 1. Many different approaches have worked in changing the world so we should be humble and not assume we are doing The Most Important Thing 2. The case studies we focus on are likely confirmation bias, where
 ·  · 2m read
 · 
I speak to many entrepreneurial people trying to do a large amount of good by starting a nonprofit organisation. I think this is often an error for four main reasons. 1. Scalability 2. Capital counterfactuals 3. Standards 4. Learning potential 5. Earning to give potential These arguments are most applicable to starting high-growth organisations, such as startups.[1] Scalability There is a lot of capital available for startups, and established mechanisms exist to continue raising funds if the ROI appears high. It seems extremely difficult to operate a nonprofit with a budget of more than $30M per year (e.g., with approximately 150 people), but this is not particularly unusual for for-profit organisations. Capital Counterfactuals I generally believe that value-aligned funders are spending their money reasonably well, while for-profit investors are spending theirs extremely poorly (on altruistic grounds). If you can redirect that funding towards high-altruism value work, you could potentially create a much larger delta between your use of funding and the counterfactual of someone else receiving those funds. You also won’t be reliant on constantly convincing donors to give you money, once you’re generating revenue. Standards Nonprofits have significantly weaker feedback mechanisms compared to for-profits. They are often difficult to evaluate and lack a natural kill function. Few people are going to complain that you provided bad service when it didn’t cost them anything. Most nonprofits are not very ambitious, despite having large moral ambitions. It’s challenging to find talented people willing to accept a substantial pay cut to work with you. For-profits are considerably more likely to create something that people actually want. Learning Potential Most people should be trying to put themselves in a better position to do useful work later on. People often report learning a great deal from working at high-growth companies, building interesting connection
 ·  · 31m read
 · 
James Özden and Sam Glover at Social Change Lab wrote a literature review on protest outcomes[1] as part of a broader investigation[2] on protest effectiveness. The report covers multiple lines of evidence and addresses many relevant questions, but does not say much about the methodological quality of the research. So that's what I'm going to do today. I reviewed the evidence on protest outcomes, focusing only on the highest-quality research, to answer two questions: 1. Do protests work? 2. Are Social Change Lab's conclusions consistent with the highest-quality evidence? Here's what I found: Do protests work? Highly likely (credence: 90%) in certain contexts, although it's unclear how well the results generalize. [More] Are Social Change Lab's conclusions consistent with the highest-quality evidence? Yes—the report's core claims are well-supported, although it overstates the strength of some of the evidence. [More] Cross-posted from my website. Introduction This article serves two purposes: First, it analyzes the evidence on protest outcomes. Second, it critically reviews the Social Change Lab literature review. Social Change Lab is not the only group that has reviewed protest effectiveness. I was able to find four literature reviews: 1. Animal Charity Evaluators (2018), Protest Intervention Report. 2. Orazani et al. (2021), Social movement strategy (nonviolent vs. violent) and the garnering of third-party support: A meta-analysis. 3. Social Change Lab – Ozden & Glover (2022), Literature Review: Protest Outcomes. 4. Shuman et al. (2024), When Are Social Protests Effective? The Animal Charity Evaluators review did not include many studies, and did not cite any natural experiments (only one had been published as of 2018). Orazani et al. (2021)[3] is a nice meta-analysis—it finds that when you show people news articles about nonviolent protests, they are more likely to express support for the protesters' cause. But what people say in a lab setting mig