As of Oct 25, 2026, 3:13 AM ET, Manifold priced this market at 95.8% (little changed over 24 hours). It had 1K mana of pool liquidity.
Play-money market (mana, not dollars) — the venue's feed doesn't report liquidity for this market, with broad trading across many accounts.
Not enough price history for this range yet.
Source: ProbCast snapshots (Manifold)
Is the move backed by real trading and depth?
This venue reports too little volume or book data for this market to judge the trading behind the price.
Has the market settled at the new probability?
The probability has held near its current level over the past several hours.
Will the rules resolve without ambiguity?
The resolution rules are relatively specific, with a named source and a defined deadline.
Two different questions: how hard the price is to move, and whose trading set it.
How hard is it to move this price?
Pool liquidity
1K mana
Bid-ask spread
n/a
automated market maker
24h volume
0 mana
Total volume
9.3K mana
Play money: depth is in mana, so it says nothing about real-money conviction.
Whose opinion is this price?
Accounts
25
Trades
75
over 31 days
Largest order
1.5K mana
9.3K mana traded across these 75 trades (last 31 days).
Many independent accounts traded — the price reflects a crowd, not one trader.
From the latest trade tape (most recent 200 prints) — a live activity sample, not a lifetime total.
Tweet thread for context: [tweet]For this to resolve YES, the original proof does not need to be perfect. It is not uncommon for there to be minor (and easily fixable) mistakes in a long technical proof.
This summary shows the opening of the venue's official rules. ProbCast has not yet generated an independent plain-English interpretation for this contract — review the full rules before relying on it.
Tweet thread for context: [tweet]For this to resolve YES, the original proof does not need to be perfect. It is not uncommon for there to be minor (and easily fixable) mistakes in a long technical proof. The key question is whether they are "easily fixable". This can resolve NO as soon as the proof is demonstrated to be substantially incorrect and there has been a reasonable enough wait time to ensure that there isn't some "easy fix" to address the issue. Otherwise, I plan to resolve this YES if it has been 6 months after market creation and academic consensus appears to believe the proof. If after 6 months, this is still actively contested, then I will likely wait longer until things settle down. As resolution here is fairly subjective, I won't trade.
The contract must resolve based on what has happened by this date.
Derived from the contract's own mechanics as of Oct 25, 4:38 AM ET. ProbCast does not list scheduled meetings, announcements, or data releases it cannot verify.
Research signals — these models are still accumulating the history needed for full validation, and they can disagree with the headline read. Model confidence: low · expected error ±20 pts.
Thin book and/or wide spread. Small orders can move this price disproportionately, so any single print is noisy and easily overread.
Read with caution —Read the latest price with caution; conditions make it an unreliable summary right now.
Short-term motion of the price line (~1h), distinct from the environment above — not a prediction of the final outcome.
Secondary read: leaning toward Stale price.
A read-only classification of the market environment — how much weight the current price deserves as a read of consensus. It describes conditions, never a trade.