I would like to test whether prediction markets are worse than they were during zero-interest land. The incentive to create sophisticated models to get low percentage points of edge is much lower today than it was before. Why risk time and effort trying to predict the 2024 election for a few pp of edge when you can… just buy a 1y tbill instead? Sure there are probably better ways to express an opinion on these types of things too. Options that favour a team red or team blue win come to mind, but no matter what you’re still competing with 5% yield.
I think this is solvable by having some kind of betting token that itself accrues interest over time to reduce the opportunity cost but if regulators already don’t like prediction markets boy they especially wouldn’t like that.
This is indeed a problem for long-term markets but long-term is more about 10 years and longer here. Something like "Will China invade Taiwan before 2040?" is a long-term example.
Prediction markets are nearly 50-50 for democrat vs republican president currently. That is a 100% yield if you are correct. It isn't about the yield. It is about much more accurate you are. If your oracle gives you 60-40, you will still lose lots of bets but you will easily beat the 5% yield of treasure bills.
Just as calling the maintainer's offer extortion is not correct, I think it's also to call the email a threat is not correct. It's at worst entitled and slightly aggressive in the part that we saw.
It's pretty shocking that someone in the industry so long thinks that OSS maintainers owe him anything though, or that he didn't think to simply fork his own version - he must know this is an option. He's probably read the MIT license at some point in his career - has he never stopped to think about what to provide something 'as-is' means? His position suggests that he has the resources available to do a lot of things that were far less embarrassing than asking someone who owes him nothing to make his job easier.
From the IBM employee's perspective it should seem reasonable that if he's asking for specifics that take time to figure out and for answers to questions while not contributing anything to the project, that he should pay for those answers in a timely fashion for his benefit. He's treating the Github like a support page so I don't see anything wrong with the maintainer offering a support contract in response to that. It would be beneficial to both parties.
If the maintainer said "I'm not releasing this until you grant me a support contract", maybe that would be extortion. Until then, he's simply getting the service he pays for.
There was nothing OP could have done here. The fix was already merged. He's just asking for a tagged release. You cannot submit a PR or contribute to the project in a way to make this happen.
If you think any business will go through a multi-week procurement and contract negotiation process valued at multiple thousands of dollars just to get a release tagged on Github, I have bad news for you.
The work was already done per messages that the Twitter author/maintainer conveniently did not screenshot. The only thing they were waiting on was a release which something only the maintainer can do. Maybe it's just me, but I think it's unreasonable to be expected to paid to do the basic tasks of a project maintainer.
You do realize you're capable of maintaining internal company release right? It just costs money (to IBM), dishing out "thinly veiled demands" is free though.
The work is presumably publicly available in a branch at that point. Nothing is stopping that person from forking the repo, and bundling their own release.
They should fork the entire project and launch a competing project rather than ask for a ballpark for the next release so they can inform their stakeholders?
You seem to be incapable of understanding that it is quite possible and not at all unusual to internally carry patches to dependencies on which your commercial product is built. In this case, the patch merely involves changing two bytes[1], three if you include the pyOpenSSL bump, something a company like IBM should easily be able to do.
Which is why paid licenses have an "Enterprise license" where response times is hours or max a day. I feel all FOSS projects should stop being fully FOSS (yes even if I get hate for saying this so be it) and adopt a mixed model where it is free up until revenue X$ and then commercial. Commercial would automatically entail fast response times (including fixing bugs, tagged releases etc).
The revenue X$ can be something reasonable. Have slabs for various revenue levels starting from something decently high: million dollars and up.
I've spent the last two years very successfully trading and I am interested in a career where I need to think like this. I've written a comprehensive blog on what I did in lieu of a CV, as it's more interesting and tells you more about who I am and how I think.
I'm expanding my skillset from just programming and trading to include generative AI, currently making a mentoring companion to language learning. I've got strong soft skills from years working in care. I'm seeking junior trading roles or internships, or a similar career where risk is thought about a lot.
Location: Ireland
Remote: No preference
Willing to relocate: Anywhere in the world, UK + Irish citizenship
Technologies: Python w/ Jupyter notebooks and dataviz libraries, ChatGPT, C#
Résumé/CV: https://medium.com/@c0m/learning-the-business-of-risk-a1d69dda915a
Email: hn [AT] omaolain [DOT] com
I think this is solvable by having some kind of betting token that itself accrues interest over time to reduce the opportunity cost but if regulators already don’t like prediction markets boy they especially wouldn’t like that.