Steph's dashboard

CLARIFICATION:

"For example, users with a total net worth of between $20K and $40K would compete only with each other while they are in that particular grouping."

By this I did not mean to suggest only from a reporting standpoint, as that does not solve the market problem. My intention was that they have a separate market that includes only them. The same questions could be used for everyone, it's just that the wagers would be be confined into bands. If there were five bands there would be five markets for each question and users would only be able to wager on their market level.

kruijs: Thanks for the enlightening links! I read most of the comments at the links and it looks like the solutions will not solve the problem. Re-valuing high achievers' money doesn't seem fair to them (I'm not one of them). Changing the leaderboard reporting format has been a good idea to reduce people getting discouraged and increase competition. Unfortunately, though, it does not address the market impact problem caused by too much money from just a few users skewing the markets. That creates problems for those both with and without a lot of money. Putting limits on wagers going into a particular market hurts the high achievers' ability to invest and thus their growth potential. Not limiting it screws up the markets. Although I have no great answer to the problem two less than perfect thoughts come to mind as having potential to alleviate the problem:

1) Facilitate a massive influx of new users (how, I do not know) to dilute the high achievers' wealth to overall market ratio. This will not change their actual dollar value and will trend toward making the Hubdub market more analogous to actual financial markets.

2) Separate the users into "question bands" based on their net worth. This is similar to, but different, than a previous suggestion. For example, users with a total net worth of between $20K and $40K would compete only with each other while they are in that particular grouping. When their net worth changes they are moved up or down a level. This would confine people to betting with people of similar net worth and would go a long way toward unskewing the markets. I could see this being a nightmare to facilitate on the server side but the Hubdub techs have been holding up pretty good so far so maybe it might be a good challenge for them.

mork, Markov:
Hubdub has addressed this topic earlier:
http://getsatisfaction.com/hubdub/top...
http://getsatisfaction.com/hubdub/top...

What it was all about? Getting the $H out of the system again.
I had proposed to give away some bling-bling to users who give away money in return. http://getsatisfaction.com/hubdub/top...

Awesome post infernalmachine! Your description of the problems users face when they hit a certain dollar amount is right on the head.

As to the solution I cannot say. However, the problem as you stated it is very real and likely negatively impacts the site. I am not referring to some people having massive wealth but rather that, due to the problems you described, people will find it more and more difficult to maintain an interest in their Hubdub activities. I have already found myself following the exact progression you indicated and it is getting old. Maybe there are too many questions diluting the money. Maybe too many people have too much money "trapped" in dead markets with overly lengthy or non-existent settlement dates. Maybe there aren't enough new members joining and the majority of members have just plain gotten too savvy. Many questions, despite high activity levels, probably only have a few people wagering on them with large dollar amounts. Others have too little money and a "small" bet from a moderately wealthy user totally corrupts the market. The bottom line is this: There is a problem and it would behoove us all to find a way to fix it. Thanks for the good post!

I have an idea...
One way to alleviate the gap of the wealthy and the poor would be to have a bank that the poor could borrow from and have the bank financed by the wealthy.

An incentive to invest in the bank could be a 'badge' or 'rank' associated with the user.

The qualification of a loan should not be an easy matter. One way to qualify for a loan could be the condition of creating a question. The amount of the loan qualification could be directly proportional to the popularity of the question. A waiting period of one or two days could determine what the value of the approved loan would be.

The badge or rank should be subtle. As new users become more familiar with the site they will recognize the elite.

I think the leaders in wealth not only reflect wise market decisions but also the loyalty of the hubdub pioneers. (something worthy of a badge?)

I am a little disturbed by the cheeziness of my idea but I think the degree of the existing wealth amongst us may discourage new users.

Although if current US monetary policy was followed this would be certain to wreck financial markets and increase HubInflation. Thanks, Beranake!

i definitely think its an interesting idea
its certainly worth consideration

im not sure it would be fair to some bc people with a ton of money could then make money a lot faster than people with very little

also the interest rate would have to be pretty minimal so people dont just put all of their money in and stop betting altogether

Oooh, good point! – Steph, on April 18, 2008 21:23

You can use my monkey avatar $$Free

hm, sorry to interrupt the excitement, but I think "however they wish" goes too far in my eyes...
It's the shortest and easiest way to get a permission, I understand, and although I allege that HD has only honest motives, I won't ever give such a full permission without any restrictives. Sorry about that.

H$50? How about H$100K for each use, along with exclusive spokeswoman opportunities?

Hmmmm......

Can we not get like $50 hubdub dollars for the use of our images and words, that would be kinda fun.

Oh wow! Now I have to search for a really good pic.....

Wow, congrats Nigel and crew!

I agree Steph. Unfortunately it is exactly what I anticipated and the reason I accepted humiliating myself campaigning. Thankfully the perpetrator did not try and find a handful of people with similar disregard for hubdub to rock the vote. In the future I hope hubdub admin can make decisions more promptly. The Spitzer Question is another example of something that got way out of hand because of the reluctance to make a decision. I suspect if the Spitzer Q went to a vote it would have had another majority vote result supporting one option, and it wouldn't have been the outcome that actually did resulted with that Question. – mork, on April 10, 2008 17:39

Congrats to all! I'm satisfied with this, but I am disappointed that only 13 of us voted! I'm afraid of folks questioning the worth of this decision because of the low "voter turnout".