Just changing the short description is fine -- I should have simplified my
message after I realized that was the most logical solution.
I feel like the "temporary unusual circumstances" are the sketchiest part
of the claim. I recognize the tension between not wanting a single freak
event to cause "peak oil" to be called incorrectly, but also not wanting to
force the claim to wait 3 years past the actual event. But it seems like
this is something that can *only* be recognized in hindsight, and the
definition of a "freak event" is going to be so subjective (does OPEC
pumping less because they want to drive the prices up count as a "freak
I feel like this is going to require a non-subjective waiting time. Either
the full 3 years or shortening it now to 2 years.
> The intention was that Peak oil in 2030 or 2031 or later would be judged
> at 100. The formula could give a higher value but the value would be capped
> at 100.
> I simply hadn't considered the short description carefully or in that way.
> I have changed the short description to “Year of peak oil” as you suggest.
> If you would prefer to switch the direction of the claim, I would be happy
> to accept that change if it is, for some reason, sensible, but I don't see
> much point. Late year of peak Oil result in a high value seems more natural
> to me and is more in line with (corrected) “Year of peak oil”.
> Thanks for pointing this out and let me know if any other changes needed.
> On 24 August 2018 at 17:18 Sam Fentress <email@example.com> wrote:
> One thing that has often confused me about these kinds of scaled claims:
> The payout for YES goes up the further in the future peak oil is (2020 pays
> 0, 2030 pays 100), but then does it fall back to 0 at 2031, or do all YES
> coupons pay 100?
> If the former, then it seems like an odd price-is-right style guessing
> game: if you buy YES you hope it happens as close as possible to 2030 but
> not a day later. But the latter seems odd because it's the inverse of the
> stated claim: "peak oil BY 2030". YES should not pay anything if it happens
> after 2030.
> Either way seems odd (or quite possibly there is just something I'm not
> Would there be any advantage to switching the direction of the scale, so
> that 2020 pays the highest for YES, and 2030 pays 0? Or instead changing
> the "short" description to simply "Year of peak oil" as some others do?
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 10:42 AM chrisran.bma e-mail <
> firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Re POIL30, any
> * Improvements/suggestions
> * Comments
> * Offers to be judge ?
> I count 4 active claims created since 2009 (well maybe not active as one
> has no trades at all and has passed due date).
> Retired claims with due date since 2009 number 103. So nearly 100 fewer
> claims and many are pretty well decided like the POIL claims. Seems like
> more claims are needed and it is easy enough to see lists of these claims.
> I haven't currently got enough funds to propose many.
> So what are the most important claims that need replacing with new claims?
> Or new ones? Perhaps Tesla is getting lots of diverging positive and
> negative coverage. How to create a claim on this? Tesla
> bankrupsy/administration/CVA date? or does Tesla make $1bn profit before
> and bankrupsy/administration/CVA? or ...
> Chris Randles (7886)
> On 21 August 2018 at 12:01 FX <email@example.com> wrote:
> The following claim has been proposed. If you have constructive
> suggestions for
> improving it, please follow-up to this message. Thank you.
> claim: POIL30
> owner: 7886 (crandles)
> judge: TBD
> short: Peak Oil by 2030
> This is a scaled claim that will pay (10*(peak year-2020)) capped at
> or between 0 and 100. The peak year is defined as year of highest oil
> production according to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy.
> When there is a subsequent year with oil production being over 5%
> below the peak year and this is neither the year following the peak
> year nor is due to temporary unusual circumstances, then the claim
> should be judged.
> What temporary unusual circumstances are, is at the judges discretion
> but might include things like natural disasters or terrorist action
> on oil production/refining or other facilities or government action
> like bans/rationing possibly taxes etc that are expected to last 18
> months or less.
> However, if oil production remains below 95% of the peak year's oil
> production for three years then the circumstances cease to be
> temporary unusual circumstances and the claim should be judged.
> It is possible the claim will need to be kept open past the due date
> to see if a new peak is reached, or to see if oil production declines
> to less than 95% of peak oil production or to see if circumstances
> remain temporary unusual circumstances.
> due date: 2031/07/31
> (signed) FX