ATTN All Traders: Market Experiment

[wobber]

You all know the saying. By ourselves we're weak. Together we're strong. I wonder if anyone would like to participate in this experiment: Put your bids to 2.4. I chose this mark so we'll be in the lower limit of the support line.

At first I was thinking to ask the askers to put prices at about 3.6, but once the price would be there, we could see major sell-offs.

So, join me with every bid you want (even $1), I want to see if we can move the market.

I have a bid of 1000 at 2.40123

[Crypt_Current]

Would if I could... enjoying watching mtgoxlive right now though

[damnek]

Placed a bid at 2.402.

[wobber]

Placed a bid at 2.402.

Thank you! Let's see if others will follow and what impact it will have.

[Hawkix]

Pardon my ignorance, but how do you expect to influence the market with bids at 2.40, when the market is now around 2.90. So you are 50 000 BTC deep in bids.

Or, you meant to remove existing bids and move them to 2.40?

[wobber]

Or, you meant to remove existing bids and move them to 2.40?

That was my thought.

[cloon]

this will not work, the more people place bids, the higher they get, because everyone wants his bids being the first ones executed.
but i agree, that this eventually could push the prize, but only a minority will make profit...

[RyNinDaCleM]

I agree!^
This is just like when the price was coming down, and the sellers were asked to pull their asks back. It would only be short term, since everyone would be gunning to hit the same price point.

Do you miss the 50k wall? 

[Vandroiy]

I don't get the point. What's this supposed to achieve, artificially lower price? That's only a good idea if you can prove there are enough BTC for sale to fill everyone's orders at 2.4. Otherwise, a lot of the people joining the experiment risk never getting their order filled if this indeed is the low turning point for Bitcoin.

I'm kind of joining you unintentionally though, I believe I mostly have bids below 2.4 open right now. The ones above got completely or almost completely filled, and I have enough BTC for speculation @tm, at least unless price goes down further.

[molecular]

this will not work, the more people place bids, the higher they get, because everyone wants his bids being the first ones executed.
but i agree, that this eventually could push the prize, but only a minority will make profit...

the idea, I think, is to place money there that you don't actually want to spend at this point. The idea is that we're getting together to build a bid-wall, like big players do.

I only have $5, but put them there

[barbarousrelic]

This experiment is dependent on large numbers of people willing to act against their own financial interest for no apparent benefit. It is unlikely to succeed.

[wobber]

Define large. Also, why against their benefit?

[Crypt_Current]

this will not work, the more people place bids, the higher they get, because everyone wants his bids being the first ones executed.
but i agree, that this eventually could push the prize, but only a minority will make profit...

I guess that's why it's called an "experiment" 

[Cluster2k]

The experiment lacks one crucial factor to actually be called an experiment: a hypothesis.  What do you expect to happen when bids are retracted to your target price?  Why do you think people may be interested in participating?

[the joint]

Game theory vs. Metagame theory.

[Cluster2k]

Game theory vs. Metagame theory.

So, pulling the bids down should pull the asks down along with it?  Or not?  If it's an experiment there should be some goals stated, instead of just saying 'let's try this, it may be cool'.

[the joint]

Game theory vs. Metagame theory.

So, pulling the bids down should pull the asks down along with it?  Or not?  If it's an experiment there should be some goals stated, instead of just saying 'let's try this, it may be cool'.

I really have no idea.  I simply said "game theory vs. metagame theory" because whereas game theory was developed as a means of maximizing the utility of an individual player (think chess), metagame theory takes into account multiple players in a game all trying to maximize their own utility.  Metagame theory is interesting because it suggests that the best action for an individual may actually not be best for the individual if it hurts the group or system of which he is a part.  This has massive implications for economic theory.

[RaggedMonk]

To sum up this thread:

Why would anyone do this?

I really have no idea.

[the joint]

You heard him.   He wants to.  He has a motive...a motive.

[Crypt_Current]

Game theory vs. Metagame theory.

So, pulling the bids down should pull the asks down along with it?  Or not?  If it's an experiment there should be some goals stated, instead of just saying 'let's try this, it may be cool'.

The implied hypothesis is "it will be cool".  It might not be.  No one thought it was cool when Merlin invented homework, but that possibility didn't stop that experiment.