Process for Making Changes to Contract Definitions

Hi,

For those that missed it, there was some discussion today around a change to the contract definition for the W-SON.MIN.S-D.15MAY and similar contracts.

See here for that discussion



Now that that particular discussion is 'over', I ask another, related question, of IPredict:


What was the process / sequence of events leading up to the posting of May 02, 2012 12:56PM where IPredict added the 'clarification'?

Did a trader contact IPredict privately and ask for that clarification to be put in, or was it a forum posting from someone that initiated it (apologies if I missed the posting in that case)?



I ask because I think it is important for traders to be able to have confidence in IPredict, and the process for making such a change needs to be both transparent and well understood. Right now, it appears neither


My initial thought is that, if a trader makes a request for a clarification, they should do so in the forum under a thread for that active contract. If they contact IPredict privately, then they should be advised to post to the forum to initiate a discussion.

This seems to me to give all traders equal access to information relating to a potential change. If a change is made without that discussion, the initiator who contacted IPredict has 'insider' knowledge of a form that is NOT in the best interests of the market (substantively different from having inside knowledge of a situation outside of the IPredict management function).

Ultimately, I do believe it is up to the IPredict management ('Admin') to make the determination, but they should be informed by all viewpoints from those that wish to express themselves in the forum.

It might also be best to post a standard line on the contract page, stating that there is discussion on clarifying / changing the definition, and providing a link to the forum page(s) where that discussion resides.


That discussion might takes hours, days, or even weeks, but at least all traders participating in that contract can then make an informed decision as to what price(s) to trade at based on both the existing criteria, their assessment of the likelihood of a change in criteria, and their assessment of the new (potential) criteria.



I would encourage a permanent statement of policy on this, and have it put up in the FAQs (say).


Alan.

Thanks Alan,

The events leading up to that change was Admin's perception that the stock wasn't accurately covering all potential outcomes. There was no outside interference, or personal approaches to admin over this or any other matter.

Ultimately when the change was announced in the discussion thread, the admin agreed with the reasoning of the traders that this change was unwarranted, and immediately retracted the statement, asking all negatively affected traders to contact the admin directly.

I agree that transparency is key to the integrity of the markets. If the admin so much as receives an email asking a question about a particular stock, then the admin will (unless the question is incredibly benign) publish that email with redacted names.

Please note of course that Admin doesn't trade, nor does the site admin have any access to traders information or trading history, accounts are still dealt with down at Victoria University.

In terms of a resolution for the FAQs, and a thread on how admin can deal with any changes in future, it's not a silly idea. Despite the all dealings being online, you can rest assure that the admin is human and mistakes can happen. Especially while it's still relatively early days for this admin.

I'll try and put some thought into it rather than doing it adhoc, and have something up in the next week.

Thanks for the question Alan,


Cheers


Oliver