Account Information
Name:
FilibusterTerminator
Pseudonym:
Elegant-Cloister
Created:
2024-09-27 21:32:41
Last Activity:
1 week ago
Tier:
Silver
profile-image-815064-0f204c2e-1812-4dfa-beb6-24d2d5dbaa85.png
Total Profit
$102,760
Blockchain trace
| Address | Roles | Chains | Currencies | Total | Requests |
|---|
Stats
Portfolio value
$99,912.84
Markets traded
3,891
Trades
3,891
Largest win
$5,127.33
Profile views
440
Join date
2024-09-27 21:32:41
All-time rank
1914
All-time PnL
$102,760.04
All-time volume
$3,455,696.87
All-time profit
$102,782.08
Lifetime volume
$3,455,696.87
PnL series latest
$102,782.08
PnL series start
$102,564.09
PnL series points
24
Weighted volume
$20,595.25
Geoblock allow
No
Geoblock block
No
Geoblock close-only
No
Biggest wins & losses
Biggest wins
| Market | Outcome | Size | PnL |
|---|---|---|---|
| Will 'Hollow Knight: Silksong' win Game of the Year in the 2025 Steam Awards? | Yes | 6524.1061 | $4,389.35 |
| Will Trump say "MAGA" or "Make America Great Again" while addressing the nation on December 17? | No | 4133.8814 | $2,893.72 |
| Will Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 win Outstanding Story-Rich Game in the 2025 Steam Awards? | No | 7124.9963 | $1,861.17 |
Biggest losses
| Market | Outcome | Size | PnL |
|---|---|---|---|
| Will Path of Exile win Best Game You Suck At in the 2025 Steam Awards? | Yes | 1134.538 | $-2,914.91 |
| Will Marvel Rivals win Best Game You Suck At in the 2025 Steam Awards? | Yes | 0 | $-2,913.41 |
| Will Where Winds Meet win Best Game You Suck At in the 2025 Steam Awards? | Yes | 0 | $-2,905.37 |
Open positions (5+)
| Market | Outcome | Size | Avg | Now | Value | PnL |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Will the Democrats win the 2028 US Presidential Election? | Yes | 88000 | $0.50 | $0.58 | $51,480.00 | $7,479.04 |
| Will the Democrats win the 2028 US Presidential Election? | No | 88000 | $0.50 | $0.41 | $36,520.00 | $-7,479.82 |
| Will Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva win the 2026 Brazilian presidential election? | Yes | 1336.0077 | $0.47 | $0.64 | $848.36 | $218.26 |
| Will Trump and Putin meet next in China? | Yes | 1804.0014 | $0.15 | $0.34 | $622.38 | $355.19 |
| Will Ciro Gomes win the 2026 Ceará gubernatorial election? | Yes | 715.7493 | $0.34 | $0.71 | $508.18 | $261.52 |
Closed positions (5+)
| Market | Outcome | Size | PnL |
|---|---|---|---|
| Will 'Hollow Knight: Silksong' win Game of the Year in the 2025 Steam Awards? | Yes | 6524.1061 | $4,389.35 |
| Will Trump say "MAGA" or "Make America Great Again" while addressing the nation on December 17? | No | 4133.8814 | $2,893.72 |
| Will Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 win Outstanding Story-Rich Game in the 2025 Steam Awards? | No | 7124.9963 | $1,861.17 |
| Another critical Cloudflare incident by February 28? | Yes | 3784.304 | $1,683.33 |
| Will 'Clair Obscur: Expedition 33' win Game of the Year in the 2025 Steam Awards? | No | 3103.5508 | $1,291.78 |
Recent activity (5+)
| When | Type | Side | Market | Outcome | Price | Size | USDC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 week ago | TRADE | SELL | Next White House Press Secretary announced by September 11, 2026? | No | $0.38 | 229.75 | $85.14 |
| 1 week ago | TRADE | BUY | Next White House Press Secretary announced by August 28, 2026? | Yes | $0.23 | 109.74 | $26.02 |
| 1 week ago | TRADE | BUY | Next White House Press Secretary announced by August 28, 2026? | Yes | $0.20 | 25.2 | $5.20 |
| 1 week ago | TRADE | BUY | Next White House Press Secretary announced by August 28, 2026? | Yes | $0.18 | 241.57 | $44.01 |
| 1 week ago | TRADE | BUY | Next White House Press Secretary announced by September 11, 2026? | No | $0.35 | 229.75 | $83.05 |
Recent trades (3891)
| When | Side | Market | Outcome | Price | Size |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 week ago | SELL | Next White House Press Secretary announced by September 11, 2026? | No | $0.38 | 229.75 |
| 1 week ago | BUY | Next White House Press Secretary announced by August 28, 2026? | Yes | $0.23 | 109.74 |
| 1 week ago | BUY | Next White House Press Secretary announced by August 28, 2026? | Yes | $0.20 | 25.2 |
| 1 week ago | BUY | Next White House Press Secretary announced by August 28, 2026? | Yes | $0.18 | 241.57 |
| 1 week ago | BUY | Next White House Press Secretary announced by September 11, 2026? | No | $0.35 | 229.75 |
Comments
2025-03-12 21:16:00
keep the shares, they can hit
2025-03-29 13:36:48
The more predictable when to expect something to be said is for the market, the better liquidity we shall get on general week-long mentions. Verbal-only provides more predictability eliminating the uncertainty of text posts, however there is still a risk of a random video post occurring at any point of the day, which still keeps NO bidders "afraid". In my opinion, the ideal ruleset would eliminate social video posts, so everyone can more easily keep track of events that will actually count.
2025-03-30 02:18:15
Both can exist.
2025-04-08 14:20:25
They are not good, because he posts at any time, which means betting on NO is thoroughly and completely unsafe. You can't just think of the YES perspective.
2025-04-11 19:00:46
I will propose one with just that. It's less contradictory, because other mentions in this site are all verbal.
2025-04-21 16:59:23
Stop helping the noobs
2025-04-27 18:03:46
If you enjoy this market, please also check the "What will Trump say this week?" market for additional words (anything he says verbally on any event of the whole week counts, even those with no market!) https://polymarket.com/event/what-will-trump-say-this-week-968
2025-04-29 21:42:52
That is not valid, Trump needs to publicly claim that he congratulated him, either that or through an official account of the US government.
2025-04-30 01:10:09
If you enjoyed this Trump market, please also check tomorrow's Cabinet Meeting market! https://polymarket.com/event/what-will-trump-say-during-his-cabinet-meeting-on-april-30
2025-04-30 18:03:49
If you enjoyed this Trump mention market, there is more tomorrow, check it out! https://polymarket.com/event/what-will-trump-say-during-his-university-of-alabama-commencement-speech-on-may-1
2025-05-01 02:53:51
In my opinion, we should keep the "between 12 PM ET and 3 PM ET" rule, as it guarantees an emergency/odd briefing will not resolve the market, and just adjust the wording.
2025-05-08 17:53:50
I obviously need to hedge better lol
2025-06-15 00:30:32
It's over, if he says anything else from now on, it won't count.
2025-06-15 19:10:52
They are even worse
2025-06-15 19:32:18
The war is against the "threat of annihilation", not against Iran.
2025-06-25 00:58:23
If there is any audio or video of Trump recorded and published between the timeframe described in this market, anywhere on the internet, where Trump says a word on this market, it should resolve to YES. There must be enough proof to assert it was said during the listed timeframe.
2025-07-07 13:36:41
There is a reason why it resolves based on the Federal Register, it's the definitive record of Executive Orders which can resolve any inaccuracies or misunderstandings. We've had a case of an EO being announced but published VERY late by the White House, so the markets waited for the fedreg to update. This is completely the right course of action.
2025-07-12 20:44:28
If he doesn't say "Stupid" as well, you'd lose. "Stupidly" does not count.
2025-09-14 15:44:10
There is another version of this market but with a DEC 31 deadline, it's called "Nothing Ever Happens: MrBeast Edition"
2025-09-17 20:55:22
God save the King.
2025-11-02 14:45:29
Please check this market for anything Trump will say (nov 3 - 9): https://polymarket.com/event/what-will-trump-say-this-week-november-3-9
2025-11-02 20:54:47
Please check this market for anything Trump will say, this is not valid for the 60 minutes interview, only from tomorrow on (nov 3 - 9): https://polymarket.com/event/what-will-trump-say-this-week-november-3-9
2025-11-03 03:06:50
Only what airs on TV counts. The full interview doesn't, it's on the rules.
2025-11-03 14:00:56
The interview was recorded last Friday so it does not count for this market. It's only things said from November 3 (today) to November 9
2025-11-05 12:36:10
Check out the full-week Trump market for more words - anything he says whole week that is filmed within the week is valid: https://polymarket.com/event/what-will-trump-say-this-week-november-3-9
2025-11-25 23:38:13
Thanksgiving is a compound word comprised of Thanks + Giving, so it is a correct resolution. And Gobble / Waddle was mentioned over ten times, albeit a couple times it was quieter.
2025-11-28 00:41:46
He said hell twice, once during the call with the military, and again when he took a question from press at the very end.
2025-12-02 14:50:34
Tennessee Special Election tele-rally.
2025-12-12 13:05:36
Labor of Love, and other categories are also here, leave your limit orders folks - https://polymarket.com/event/steam-awards-labor-of-love-915
2025-12-12 20:03:02
Best Game on Steam Deck https://polymarket.com/event/steam-awards-best-game-on-steam-deck
2025-12-13 16:20:22
Outstanding Visual Style https://polymarket.com/event/steam-awards-outstanding-visual-style
2025-12-13 16:22:20
Better With Friends https://polymarket.com/event/steam-awards-better-with-friends
2025-12-14 15:21:55
Check out VR Game of the Year, more challenging contest there https://polymarket.com/event/steam-awards-vr-game-of-the-year
2025-12-14 17:01:14
Best Game You Suck At (these other Steam Awards markets need liquidity providers) - https://polymarket.com/event/steam-awards-best-game-you-suck-at
2025-12-15 21:55:35
Looking for liquidity providers for Sit Back and Relax and other categories https://polymarket.com/event/steam-awards-sit-back-and-relax
2025-12-17 14:49:14
Don't buy anything that is 99c, he has said those
2025-12-18 21:35:49
It's random, each person gets a different order, exactly to prevent bias
2025-12-19 14:43:01
Check other categories as well, including Labor of Love https://polymarket.com/event/steam-awards-labor-of-love-915
2025-12-23 18:44:42
you need to wait for the actual thing to broadcast, if CBS does not cut it from the official stream, it resolves YES
2025-12-29 20:28:56
There is a reason why the news uses quotes -- unverified claims.
2025-12-30 20:07:54
I've made my opinions clear on the Polymarket and UMA discords. A schedule is guidance for events that will occur, not an edit made after events occurred. And the greeting is separately defined by the White House on the schedule (has always been), and separately posted by the White House in a different video. If you are a user entering this market upon seeing the first schedule as posted, with a single entry for "The President participates in a bilateral meeting", should you be correctly aware of the events separation, you will be immediately aware that a separate Greeting session would not count, if it occurs. Is it right to switch this interpretation, because something was later added, after everything was said and done?
2025-12-30 23:25:15
The time at which the schedule update was made was important enough to Polymarket that they clarified this press briefing was not valid, even though it was an official update from the White House. https://polymarket.com/event/what-will-karoline-leavitt-say-during-the-next-white-house-press-briefing-375
2025-12-31 03:29:34
Just shows that the schedule matters. Even though the rules were different, they upheld what was defined even though it changed afterwards. Why a later change is now valid here?
2025-12-31 16:16:39
Trump said "Putin 3+ times" during the second Q&A. The market for Zelensky could only have resolved via the remarks from the second Q&A. The White House video for the Zelensky bilateral titled it "Remarks in a Bilateral Meeting" defining the second Q&A as part of the Bilateral meeting. As per the rules, "if the events contain a Q&A, it will count toward the resolution of this market." Which means this by itself is proof that remarks said during the Netanyahu bilateral's last Q&A stream have the standalone authority to resolve the market. This does not encompass the Greeting, clearly and historically defined by the White House, by the schedules, by the separate video posts as a separate schedule entry. And by Trump saying during Monday's greeting "We are going to have a big meeting and we'll see you in a couple of hours", implying the meeting itself had not yet started.
2025-12-31 16:19:36
Above I am referring to the Zelensky bilateral, where Trump said Putin 3+ times, and not at the Greeting, which means the Greeting had no way to resolve it, and the fact the market resolved as YES, means the latter Q&A was used as the resolution source.
2025-12-31 16:27:00
Because the market, as I noted below, overwhelmingly understood that Trump said "There will be hell to pay" and only a minority thought that was not what was said.
2025-12-31 16:30:45
That's incidental, because the Greeting always features next to no remarks. This was an exception.
2025-12-31 18:08:34
When it's a historically separate entry to a schedule, you have a basis to treat it as something separate. Check previous bilaterals on the RollCall calendar, and see how it's all marked with a red dot, representing an official schedule. See how every greeting is posted by the White House YouTube Channel as a separate video.
2025-12-31 19:57:48
Keep it simple. The rules are about SCHEDULE. Look up the definition of schedule - a plan for a future event. What the rules want is for an event to be present on the schedule BEFORE it occurs - logical.
2026-01-01 14:12:04
You wouldn't be saying that if you're the one bonding something when the page updates to include something that was not there before.
2026-01-01 14:17:49
Apparently, the UMA voters only see the posts that are on top. So, because the YES bandwagon that argued P2 concentrated their posts to be the last ones, the voters open the page and only see people arguing YES in their first tab. This is a strategy that greatly influences the outcome. A fairer way to do it would be a system to select "most relevant NO arguments" vs "most relevant YES arguments" for voters to make an unbiased, untampered decision.
2026-01-01 14:21:15
I prefer centralized decision making (AKA. clarifications) versus a voting system prone to politics and bias.
2026-01-01 19:36:11
You can't win because it's already decided somehow, the big money already knows how the vote will be.
2026-01-01 19:51:26
No insiders, it's just a regular user, check the buyers
2026-01-01 20:59:58
I rarely publicly post my opinions, but as someone who participated in nearly every single Trump mention, I guarantee the YES resolution is wrong on a fundamental level.
2026-01-01 21:03:41
Users who bought Nuclear 3+ times NO prior to the last stream deserve a refund, as the word Nuclear has not been said three times during events with Trump and the Israeli Prime MInister that were scheduled.
2026-01-02 13:53:44
Sad day for the mentions category.
2026-01-02 14:03:12
The voting system used by UMA punishes voters via a token slashing system; You effectively lose money if you vote on the losing option, which scares you into voting accordingly to what you think will win, not what you think is correct. This is much taking a position on a market here.
2026-01-02 16:31:22
He said Fuck (on camera) two times in 2025.
2026-01-02 18:00:31
2x in 2024, 2x in 2023, 3x in 2022, before that it was much rarer (as per documented data). Based on recency I'd say it's 16-20% chance of him saying it during any given month, but I'd say January is actually lower odds.
2026-01-03 13:11:48
One moment of silence for all the YES holders for December 31.
2026-01-03 13:47:43
UMA doesn't vote against clarifications. And the rules contained the military definition, so even though it may feel a wrong resolution, it's technically correct (though I the rules writer may have ignored this possibility)
2026-01-03 17:37:24
YES!
2026-01-03 18:09:27
Never fade the Hollow Knight.
2026-01-03 20:53:36
easter egg hunt
2026-01-03 21:18:17
Money is so overrated, better just waste the chances XD
2026-01-03 23:51:36
I doubt there were insiders, if there were insiders the price would've pumped much harder. Also insiders typically use brand new accounts, and I saw none.
2026-01-09 21:43:34
Well it's a relevant event with big repercussion
2026-01-12 04:25:17
yep
2026-01-12 04:25:39
Sinners paid for their sins
2026-01-13 21:38:11
No, because the term is "midterm elections", not "midterms". He must say exactly what is listed on the market.
2026-01-14 01:07:19
Fake news
2026-01-18 01:02:44
You should sell your shares, this market requires a proof that the 'Career' mention happened live, which it has not because the only source stream of the event (Zoom) had her muted at the beginning. Any videos posted later are simply reposts of what was fixed, so this can't go yes, since the original livestream never contained the remark. Check the rules -- only live footage counts.
2026-01-18 15:09:33
I have proposed a market for Discord critical incidents, which was created: https://polymarket.com/event/critical-discord-incident-by/critical-discord-incident-by-june-30-2026
2026-01-18 15:59:50
Nope
2026-01-18 16:04:41
This isn't because of the plural, plurals ARE valid.
2026-01-18 17:31:15
The market understands the word was not said "live", because when the event was actually live, the part where she said it had no sound. This was fixed later, but then no longer live. It's kinda frustrating because the word was actually said live, so a bit of a contradiction to resolve as NO, but apparently Polymarket's interpretation of the rules is that if it wasn't audible live, it doesn't count.
2026-01-20 23:29:25
Because no one proposed it
2026-02-04 17:02:05
If the incident remains as Critical impact classification, the market should resolve as YES
2026-02-04 18:18:26
The rules explain that red is critical. If the incident is red coloured, it is classified as critical.
2026-02-04 18:43:22
A round of applause to PolyAlpha money burners.
2026-02-14 14:46:36
Read the rules, it resolves based on the medal table state after the final event. If you want your cash now, just sell at 99.9c
2026-02-14 14:46:45
Brazil
2026-02-25 21:25:13
This was not a scam, the phrase "The state of the union is strong" is commonly said by most presidents, Trump merely says it differently. You can't expect the market to resolve to YES if he said it differently.
2026-02-25 23:20:46
If he says "N Word" that resolves the market to yes, but he has not done so for months.
2026-02-28 00:49:29
The incident was reclassified as non-critical, thus, is not valid
2026-02-28 00:53:28
cucked by cloudflare
2026-02-28 01:02:44
It does not matter, as per the rules, the classification that matters is the one assigned when the incident is marked as resolved. This incident will not qualify for a YES resolution.
2026-03-03 18:55:29
Trump has said "Stupid" at least two times at the end of the stream.
2026-03-06 15:27:16
[link removed]
2026-03-09 02:48:23
[link removed]
2026-03-10 13:17:44
No, these are correct resolutions, stop spreading misinformation and tarnishing the reputation of this site, please.
2026-03-10 13:43:49
He would typically attend the final, not the opening
2026-03-11 00:40:59
No
2026-03-12 02:25:41
it shouldn't, the term is "President DJT" not "President DONALD J. TRUMP"
2026-03-12 22:26:07
Exit
2026-03-13 01:43:10
Why keep the whole 2.7K
2026-03-13 15:00:01
There are some questionable user behavior here, but the platform itself is not to blame. He actually said Jesus and someone found a recording, that's all that happened.
2026-03-13 15:01:26
Check the UMA Discord dispute threads + proposal threads (created right after the market is proposed), there you will find evidence of every mention.
2026-03-16 16:30:17
NOT OVER YET!
2026-03-18 13:25:22
Nope, he actually said "The only thing we didn't take down was the OIL". Think about it, why would he spare a road?
2026-03-18 15:08:59
You're just assuming he is going to tweet every day. On saturday, he failed to tweet.
2026-03-18 16:37:02
he had tweeted on Saturday before though
2026-03-19 23:54:54
This market is about more than one event, and he had said "NATO" two times and "Friend" one time during the Bilateral meeting.
2026-03-24 14:07:20
This should have been disputed; The incident used to resolve was an incident which originated before the market started, and the outcome was forced through relying on nobody being available to do so.
2026-03-24 22:51:59
The 'Cheat / Cheater / Cheated / Cheating' counter is 10+ times - The amount was truncated, but is visible on the right. Trump must say these terms (any one of them) a combined total of ten times for the bracket to resolve as YES.
2026-03-25 03:00:59
He said "Khomeini" which is different from when he properly read the name in the start of March. Check how "Khamenei" spells from that video.
2026-03-25 03:24:54
That is AI generated
2026-03-25 03:33:05
He said it exactly the same way the other week and it resolved NO. Check the videos.
2026-03-25 03:55:27
I just arrived. Though there is still the risk of him saying it.
2026-03-25 13:30:21
Please don't assume he has said Khamenei, this is what the market would expect - [link removed]
2026-03-26 01:49:30
Cheat, Cheater, Cheated and Cheating combine to exactly ten mentions as far as I could verify
2026-03-26 01:50:29
🔥
2026-03-26 01:56:57
I suggest you recheck the video carefully, and count every instance of "cheat", "cheater", "cheated", and "cheating", it was actually said 10 times precisely.
2026-03-26 02:00:22
1. And I want other places, but in California and other states, they cheat so badly with it, they send 38 million ballots out.
2. I've won with mail-in ballots, but I hate mail-in ballots because. Is basically it's a way of cheating.
3. And the conclusion was, never allow mail in ballots, because if you do, there'll be massive cheating, and that's what happens.
4. The only one that fight it are the Democrat leaders, because they want to cheat.
5. I always add with a picture, it's true, and the only reason you don't want that is because you want to cheat.
6. And they do cheat, and we can't let them get away with it.
7. I hope they're looking at some of these criminals that cheated on the election.
8, 9, 10. But they cheated, millions of votes, dirty cheats, dirty, rotten cheaters.
2026-03-27 00:12:44
You're confusing things. One thing is him pronouncing Kamala with a different accent or tone of voice to make fun of her. Another thing is a misprononciation of a name that fundamentally alters it - "Khamenei" vs "Khomeini". I hope he actually says it correctly tomorrow somehow, just so the damage to the category is lower. But the website is legit, even if it upsets this did not resolve as YES. The mistake is in adding the name to the market, when knowingly Trump says it incorrectly, creating this situation. Please do not stop using this website over this.
2026-03-27 13:13:33
Yes, he said "Shit" during the cabinet meeting and "Gay" during the Fox interview, where the show's hosts commented on "Gays for Palestine" after the Trump mentioned Schumer.
2026-03-27 13:19:46
He does a "Kho-meini" sound. That isn't good enough, otherwise this would have resolved the past week's market, as he said it last week as well. Instead of wasting money on a lost cause, join Polymarket's discord server and support my idea on the "#mentions-ideas" channel (open the thread called "Trump Weekly, April 5")
2026-03-27 19:38:56
I feel you on that. I also heard him say "Six Seventh", but it was a subjective judgement I guess.
2026-03-29 14:48:18
Sometimes is an overstatement. He only said that two times, it's easier for him to say f*ck at this rate.
2026-03-30 21:44:18
Polymarket clarified saying there is no evidence of a call, overturning UMA's accepted consensus.
2026-03-31 22:06:17
wtf you guys thinking, he said pool
2026-03-31 22:20:44
Polling about swimming
2026-03-31 22:33:34
difficult to think you are right when the market starts to drop
2026-04-01 02:36:30
You should understand that from the start this was going to be short, if Trump gaggled with the press at all. It's a musical he went to watch, not a press briefing.
2026-04-01 13:48:07
Because the event is closed to the press
2026-04-01 15:52:59
It's not written wrong, the issue is that people misassumed a different part of the rules to apply to the No Qualifying clause, which was devised later and is self-contained.
2026-04-01 16:34:02
That does not mean much, there are countless streams on YT that closed. Not saying it can't though
2026-04-01 16:51:12
it will count, but that page is not a sign that it will stream, it's just on standby
2026-04-01 17:52:38
Sell, chances are slim now since the thing probably is ending or has ended
2026-04-01 17:55:05
You can still buy "No qualifying" YES at 90% for 10% ROI, you'd lose if it streams at all, but everything indicates no stream
2026-04-01 18:06:58
You only had bad luck. Check tonight's Address market, it will stream for sure.
2026-04-01 18:38:15
It has to be live, if the lunch ended it's over
2026-04-01 19:50:02
No, only if he says "N Word".
2026-04-01 21:01:54
Guys it doesn't matter, the event streamed, it's not live. Live means it must be being broadcast as it happens.
2026-04-01 21:48:37
That is a clear NO. Are you in support of the clarification for "Six Seven-ts" as YES?
2026-04-02 15:07:15
Your words would make more sense if your positions were Yes
2026-04-02 22:45:39
Announcements of acting or interim appointments, or announcements which merely reveal potential candidates, will not qualify. Media reports, speculation, or other unofficial information will not qualify.
2026-04-04 19:41:42
Only incidents listing ChatGPT under 'Affected components' will be considered. Incidents labeled as affecting 'APIs,' or 'Sora,' but not ChatGPT, will have no bearing on the resolution of this market.
It's a ChatGPT incident, there are no subgroupings. If it's grouped under ChatGPT, and a partial outage, it resolves the market.
2026-04-04 19:45:14
Stop spreading FUD. This is a status page managed by the company's own impact assessment. That page does not react to reports from third party websites, it reacts to their own internal monitoring and detection mechanisms of issues in their platform. Something abnormal happens, they get an alert and work on fixing it, simultaneously reporting their progress on the status page.
2026-04-04 19:47:06
About the deadline argument, it's just a lie. The Dictation feature incident was marked resolved as of Thu, Apr 2, 2026, 02:49 PM. And even if it had resolved afterwards, it would still be valid as per the rules, so long as it originated within the timeframe.
2026-04-04 19:53:45
People are just expecting him to because he did so last year on Easter Sunday. Kind of a risky bond, he could say the same thing in other ways
2026-04-04 20:01:33
Trump recently criticized him, so he is probably not even up for consideration.
2026-04-06 16:06:24
No eight wars, meh
2026-04-06 16:17:58
Now you know
2026-04-06 16:29:15
No, he said "eggs made of plastic"
2026-04-06 20:18:43
He asked for that word, thinking somebody would do exactly this, and left a buy order in waiting.
2026-04-06 20:49:08
Head over to Discord and check the event's Thread on #mentions-ideas. Never buy the words CAT (canceronstick) asked for. He purposefully asked for AI / Cyber in the News Conference market, so that when Trump said "CIA", some people who are not native speakers would be confused (in latin languages AI sounds like IA) and misbond. "pianktonxd" (0x66c1a6fe836ff555ca32848646acedbbe93bfa3f) is his Polymarket user (he changes names routinely).
2026-04-06 20:53:16
Be warned, on polymarket discord, I'd advise checking all mentions threads inside the channel 'mentions-ideas'. Never buy the words CAT (canceronstick) asked for. He purposefully asked for AI / Cyber in the News Conference market, so that when Trump said "CIA", some people who are not native speakers would be confused (in latin languages AI sounds like IA) and misbond. Check his 1c buy on NO for that event. He routinely asks for such words. "pianktonxd" (0x66c1a6fe836ff555ca32848646acedbbe93bfa3f) is his Polymarket user (he changes names routinely).
2026-04-06 22:07:45
You guys are messing with fire, bonding that Trump won't post something.
2026-04-07 00:52:26
Yup, he is a very smart guy. He doesn't even need to do this to win.
2026-04-07 02:13:56
Market Proudly Sponsored by Great Lakes Bald Eagle Cam
2026-04-07 19:28:53
He can't just say "mission accomplished" because the Strait is closed. And that is really, really bad for him.
2026-04-07 23:53:14
You are essentially betting on a rulescuck. A ceasefire agreement is a deadline extension. The deadline is no longer that anymore. And there is an overwhelming consensus of credible reporting that "Trump extended his ultimatum".
2026-04-08 01:11:50
The only constant on ceasefire markets are the cries of "Scam" when they resolve.
2026-04-08 13:37:44
Trump's rarely used nickname for the word 'Nuclear'.
2026-04-08 17:13:06
Let me get this Strait...
2026-04-08 21:01:33
Whatever you are watching, is a fake stream of a past recording. Don't be fooled
2026-04-09 16:31:31
The truth is that you are new in this site, and so, like many, you nurtured false hope that you can win an already settled market, for a big, unrealistic payout, because you've seen others doing the same and giving you the impression you have a real chance of winning. When you realized you will lose, you resort, like most, to calling it a scam, even though markets of all other platforms resolved in the same direction, and you clearly have the two conditions for a YES resolution - confirmation from the US and confirmation from the Iranian governments. And if you think this is something "unprecedented", no, this happens all the time on polymarket, like a bad, orchestrated play.
Whales are not always the heroes, and there is a lot of questionable political resolutions, but that is in a minority of cases, and a market of this magnitude is, truly, "too big to rig".
2026-04-09 23:45:48
Both sides accepted the same terms, but forgot to include certain aspects in the terms, like whether or not Iran's terrorist proxies are included in, which led to a later disagreement.
2026-04-10 20:05:53
Nobody cares about scammers trying to force through a misinterpretation of the rules to steal other people's money (you). You just bought at 0.1c hoping for a 1000x, quite sad that the same people (who failed to scam) attempt to harm the website's reputation by spewing falsehoods online.
2026-04-10 20:06:56
Next time, buy the expensive side instead of the cheap (wrong) side.
2026-04-10 20:09:34
Why are you guys so surprised by the (obvious) outcome? You are wrong and just think you are right. You enter this site hoping for a x1000 win, against people who have been here for years and know for sure that they are correct. NO holders are merely burning money away, take a long time to realize this, and even harm the website's reputation by later posting lies online.
2026-04-10 20:11:27
There was never a chance. The other brackets already resolved as YES. And the facts are the facts. There was a formal ceasefire proposal accepted from both sides. Ceasefires are always temporary in nature, never permanent, because permanent ceasefires are the effective end of a war.
2026-04-11 13:11:43
Praise be to Allah!
2026-04-11 13:56:47
If you want another market "Will Trump praise Allah again by...?" please like this comment
2026-04-11 14:04:25
[link removed]
2026-04-11 14:07:13
Not possible to post Truth links, they get filtered by Polymarket, but go check Trump's recent Truth Social post, he says "Praise be to Allah" in a sarcastic remark.
2026-04-11 15:02:35
Stop making random claims, people will end up believing this. You are hurting the site.
2026-04-13 21:35:57
We won't, all will resolve as NO. Except -No Qualifying Event-, which exists precisely for this.
2026-04-14 03:24:53
The origin point of the incident was before market creation.
2026-04-14 16:31:07
There is no scam, just a mistake. Interviews are normally pre-taped, and this interview was scheduled to be aired on April 15 on Fox Business, which was advertised by Fox News themselves. It makes no sense to resolve "no qualifying", if from the start the market only expected the interview to air on the 15, and so it will.
2026-04-14 22:30:19
By betting on "NO" of an outcome you are betting he will not say that term, not that the event will not air.
2026-04-14 22:59:53
Interview mentions always account for the fact they are typically pre-taped, especially with Fox. What happened here is merely the rules missed the typical paragraph specific for interviews, but the fact stands that the interview is scheduled to air on the 15. This was a slight mistake which resulted in rules unappropriate for the market, and people who bought "no qualifying event" were fully aware the interview would happen, and simply intended to exploit this mistake. If you would not correct, you would reward the exploiters and punish those who are simply betting on the interview event as it normally is.
2026-04-15 13:35:51
IPSOS = Instituto Porky Solo Obtiene Sueños 🐷
2026-04-15 21:02:14
No. This market is about today's interview. There was another interview on Sunday which they labeled "part one", but it's really two very separate interviews, on separate shows even (Sunday Morning Futures vs Mornings with Maria)
2026-04-15 21:33:54
This market's event has already happened, which means by buying YES shares you are effectively throwing cash away. The reason it has not closed is because no one proposed yet.
2026-04-15 21:41:25
The event name doesn't really matter, it's a roundtable in Las Vegas
2026-04-15 23:41:31
Please don't buy shares. The interview linked in the rules is a past interview. Notice the timestamped link which points to the end of the interview where another one (on wednesday, today) is announced. The interview for this market aired this morning, and Maria is wearing a black jacket this time - check videos
[link removed]
[link removed]
[link removed]
[link removed]
[link removed]
2026-04-16 00:16:29
la IA explotará por todas las solicitudes
2026-04-17 01:07:13
I don't think I heard 12x, but go ahead and list the timestamps
2026-04-17 13:18:39
There is no scam here, the rules say CLEARLY READABLE. If it's blurry, and you have to guess what is written from context, it's a NO.
2026-04-17 16:01:43
Compren las Sanchez coins
2026-04-17 16:36:28
Solo las boletas auditadas por JEE se cuentan en el número oficial, no se dejen engañar por el estafador de IA.
2026-04-17 19:50:23
It's not about missing the obvious. Everyone knows what the poster likely says. But the rules say it needs to be clearly visible, you can't unambiguously tell what it says without context.
2026-04-20 17:47:38
MMGA = Make Mentions Great Again
2026-04-21 00:43:31
NO A KEIKO
2026-04-22 22:10:22
Even if the resolution is correct, was it good for mentions?
2026-04-23 16:13:42
We like to throw away money, it's our hobby
2026-04-23 20:28:45
He actually said cat
2026-04-23 23:09:18
clarification LOL
2026-04-27 20:24:04
Tea time
2026-04-27 21:44:53
Mercados das eleições para GOVERNADOR acabaram de ser abertos.
2026-04-27 22:17:10
NO A KEIKO
2026-04-28 02:02:48
Colocaram rewards lá
2026-04-28 03:32:56
Temos mercados de GOVERNADOR para CE, MG, BA, SP. Para quais outros estados vocês querem mercado?
2026-04-29 01:30:59
The classification is updated at the end of the incident based on customer impact, don't count on it necessarily staying "Critical" just because it's been up for a long time.
2026-04-29 14:46:04
The user is confusion is that the main page only displays active incidents colored red. The history / incidents page is what really matters for resolution.
2026-04-30 19:33:03
Yes
2026-05-01 22:06:52
He did
2026-05-02 01:36:33
37:07 on the official White House stream, check it
2026-05-02 16:35:13
Quem ganha nas eleições para Governador da Bahia? https://polymarket.com/event/bahia-governor-election-winner
2026-05-04 01:17:29
May the 4th be with you
2026-05-05 23:41:59
how will we lose? 😆
2026-05-05 23:56:00
The rule was there in the past market, I think it was a mistake they did not include it this time. It's not a scam because NYT would only write AI that way, so it would disenfranchise YES bettors if they certified the non-validity.
2026-05-06 18:41:20
The name is Andrew Wolfe, thus not valid
2026-05-08 20:20:23
Depends on how they classify the incident when it is resolved
2026-05-08 22:43:08
Abaixa a odd do Ciro ae pls
2026-05-08 22:46:39
REPITAN CON YO: KEIKO, PORFA NO
2026-05-10 00:30:52
Buy more, win more
2026-05-10 21:54:51
Stop suggesting the term wasn't actually said, you make people think it went YES because "there was nobody to dispute" and stop betting as that feels illegitimate. TO PEOPLE THINKING IT WAS NOT SAID: If something resolves YES here, be assured Trump has said it. Only whitelisted people can propose (not everyone), and they would not risk their whitelist status to get a few hundreds stolen. If it was proposed, the proposer has evidence the word was said.
2026-05-11 14:43:42
Something not resolving the day it was published does not preclude, necessarily, its invalidity.
2026-05-11 14:48:43
Se você acredita que ChatGPT checa todos os videos de todos os lugares possíveis para te dizer se algo foi ou não dito, pare de acreditar nisso.
2026-05-11 19:11:57
For the simple fact it was too early so not enough time for posting and liquidity
2026-05-11 20:10:19
This is a gamble, we can lose
2026-05-11 22:08:55
Don't listen to others, 19c is hecking cheap for May 31. Trump says some bearish shit today and in 3 days you can see Round 2 of talks scheduled in Islamabad. Add me to discord if you want to discuss this (just send an invite to "ovr")
2026-05-13 03:21:05
There is no insider trading, unless you are the one writing his posts.
2026-05-14 15:59:49
Sharyl Attkisson interview on May 4
2026-05-17 00:08:36
He probably thinks that a livestream on youtube is sufficient to fulfill the live clause.
2026-05-17 02:58:19
They weren't; Anyone can restream something and say it's live, that doesn't make it truly live. It must be originally broadcast live (as it happens).
2026-05-17 17:10:22
Non-live footage has never counted in past mentions. We literally had an Easter Lunch at the White House that happened, but as the event happened it never streamed, and press was handed the footage four hours later but nothing was valid anymore. This is a safety measure so someone doesn't "finds something somewhere to fully reverse the course of a market after when it's expected to happen".
2026-05-17 17:13:12
Stop making it look corrupt. This is just rules as they are - not live, doesn't count. The rules' language is arguably ambiguous, the "broadcast" part is meant to address interviews / events where you know the whole thing was filmed beforehand, one easy example was the Kennedy Center Honors, we knew it was filmed a month before, but still counted.
2026-05-17 17:16:49
It's the same thing. The footage itself was never live. The events had already finished before press was given the footage to play. The live tag is just the channel's own broadcast. If I am play back footage in a news program, that program itself is LIVE, but the footage is NOT. That is it.
2026-05-17 18:39:46
It's a news channel. The news program is probably live, but the video with Trump and Xi is just something filmed prior and given to them to play. A YouTube video can be replayed as a "livestream" countless times, too. You can know this because of reports from WH of when this event ended.
2026-05-17 18:44:56
For sure, the news program is airing live, and they pick up footage from xi to playback to the viewer. Please stop wasting money. You see YES cheap and hope to win, but the reason it is cheap is because there is no qualifying footage. I will advocate for less misleading language rules wise, but this has always been this way. Exactly to prevent footage playing later on in the day, out of nowhere, from flipping a settled market.
2026-05-17 18:49:07
Stop clinging too much to the word "broadcast". That word is meant to signify events we know were filmed beforehand, and prepared to be played at a specific point in time. If the event itself was a recording that we knew was going to broadcast, then that would be a valid scenario. That unfortunately generates the ambiguity we see here. We have had scenarios just like this before, which resolved NO. It must be live, as in, you must be watching the event as it happens.
2026-05-17 19:34:05
Nippon TV was live - and played a clip of past footage they were handed. The event had ALREADY BEEN OVER when the news showed it. It doesn't friggin' matter if its a YouTube livestream. The footage itself needs to be getting shown to you as the event happens, NOT later in the day.
2026-05-17 22:43:31
All of that ignores these streams do not show live footage. The news companies were handed over footage that had been recorded earlier, to just play. To put it simply, if I play an old video inside a live news show, that doesn't make the old video live footage.
2026-05-17 22:46:32
You are not going to do that like this
2026-05-17 22:47:44
It will resolve to NO. Buy NO, you earn money. Buy YES, you lose money. Simple.
2026-05-17 22:57:34
The news anchor may say whatever they want. This video you linked began streaming (youtube time) a whole hour before the linked Fox News video. If the chinese video you linked is live, then how can another clip posted one hour before it exist?
2026-05-17 23:16:45
Not live footage, footage was filmed and handed over to media to play it afterwards. You actually can't broadcast from inside the area, it has no signal. Probably jamming devices. It's a key government area.
2026-05-17 23:20:54
Buy US-Iran nuclear deal by May 31, you might actually win there
2026-05-18 02:19:05
它不是现场直播——福克斯新闻明确表示那不是现场直播，其他所有视频流也是在随后不同时间出现的。不要被误导，也不要误导他人相信一个错误的结论。可以说这是一个令人不快的结论，但并非虚假或错误。
2026-05-18 02:20:29
So if I get an old video of Trump right now and play it on my YouTube channel it's also "Streaming live"? 😃
2026-05-18 02:24:13
Early request means the YES proposal is not valid at the time of proposal. It will be then proposed "NO", and disputed. But the outcome can't change, because (unfortunately) the footage was handed to the news outlets after the events. I agree that the rules for events like this should be slightly adjusted to encompass these edge cases, but the resolution is following prior application.
2026-05-18 14:24:36
It just doesn't matter, it just looks like a wrong resolution to you, but is the correct resolution from precedent. It's 2c for a reason, and the reason is that the big money holders understand the rules.
2026-05-18 14:25:51
That's because there the rules are different, there is no constraint on it being live.
2026-05-18 14:33:55
Different rules. I don't like the rules as they are for this market. The rules negatively harmed events with specific traits of the Trump-Xi summit (restricted, delayed press). This market should have had a better set of rules. But unfortunately, they are what they are. You bought at 3c, and why? Because those with the money know how the rules apply, and that the clips with the mentions are considered non-live. It's frustrating - the rules should have allowed for YES, but in a world where the rules allowed for YES, you would never had the chance to buy Iran Y at 3c.
2026-05-18 14:37:10
The first voting is P4, because the proposal was YES. P4 means the proposal was wrong at the proposal time. The market will then be open and someone will propose NO. If that NO proposal is disputed, there will be another round of voting, in which voters will vote for either P1 (NO) or P2 (YES). Since no new material has been produced since the original proposal, and the clarification classifies the material produced by clarification time as non-live and invalid, the vote will be P1 (NO).
2026-05-18 14:42:58
Since there are three distinct brackets open, there will be three NO proposals, and the disputer must dispute all three brackets.
2026-05-18 14:44:03
100%. These people who managed to get a big amount of money over years are throwing it all away on NO, how illiterate they are!
2026-05-18 15:04:53
Your argument is meaningless. The footage you point at clearly tells us it was a prerecorded clip that is being played. The events had already transpired when the clip surfaced. The TCR name is just a filename, it can (and probably was) created by a different device from the one displaying the current time.
2026-05-18 15:09:33
Trump has lots of respect for Iran
2026-05-18 15:13:03
The market spiked when the market saw the footage of Trump saying the words. You are implying that the fact the market spiked at the same time the footage surfaced is proof the footage was live, which is untrue - the market just reacted to the footage. And as for the YouTube argument, you can head over to your own YouTube channel, and play the video as a livestream, and there you go, it will say the same thing. "Streamed live" is not proof of actual live footage.
2026-05-18 15:16:06
Don't add fuel to the fire please. Do you think the NO resolution, even if correct, is good for Polymarket? We can't have drama of this size here.
2026-05-18 15:21:27
The "live" clause is meant to prevent insider trading, so someone with access to a restricted clip no one else can see can't just come forward and say HEY, he said it, here is the proof, and topple the whole thing over. But unfortunately, the specific characteristics of the Trump-Xi summit played against the intention of this rule clause. There is evidence the clip was not played live, and this clause prevents a YES resolution. It's infuriating, and something that should not be happening, but you cannot deny the correctness of the NO resolution.
2026-05-18 15:23:17
I probably won't do much good with my comments, but my intention is to make YES holders not view the resolution as wrong, which it isn't. Because this is bad for Polymarket. The resolution is correct, but it's hard to accept it, because it LOOKS wrong.
2026-05-18 16:24:21
No, no, you are mistaken. You saw a livestream - but that livestream only played back footage that had been pre-recorded. It was not being broadcast in realtime, as the rules require. It entered "review mode" because the market was at first, unaware of this fact. The initial reaction of the market is not a proof of anything.
2026-05-18 16:27:41
Delays are a technical limitation of every single possible livestream. Nothing that is "live" is truly "live", but it is notorious that the footage of Trump and Xi was prerecorded first, then handed over to the media for playback. You can tell yourself whatever you want, but you aren't going to win. I am not trying to argue for NO. I'm trying to make YES holders realize this is not "corruption".
2026-05-18 16:29:21
Because the State Banquet was broadcast in real time, including by the White House channel.
2026-05-18 16:35:29
The rule about livestreams was designed to prevent other kinds of negative scenarios. What happened in this market was not the intention of the rules. This market should have had slightly adjusted rules, because it was susceptible to something like this happening (China has strong restrictions on press).
2026-05-18 16:36:58
Polymarket did not change any rules. Clarifications are just explaining what the rule is. Interview markets have DIFFERENT rules, because interviews are often pre-taped before they air.
2026-05-18 16:40:25
Live means the broadcast is being seen as it is filmed, as it happens, which was not the case here. If I film something and play it to you ten minutes later, it's no longer live. A technical delay is still live because the footage is being still sent continuously as the event happens, and seen continuously, and at worst it is a couple of minutes between when something is filmed and seen by audiences.
2026-05-18 16:52:08
Neither of the two possibilities exist. Buy shares of "US-Iran nuclear deal by May 31" if you want a lottery ticket.
2026-05-18 16:53:34
That is a fallacy. If you buy a large amount of UMA, the price will go up, the cost of your theoretical attack is much greater than that.
2026-05-18 16:54:35
The Fox link you posted yourself is already proof.
2026-05-18 16:59:03
As I explained many times here, the news program having a live feed does not make the footage it displays live. Tune in to your local news show, you will see them play several clips that are visibly pre-recorded. Claiming any "LIVE" wording displayed on news feeds is proof of live footage, is just wrong.
2026-05-18 16:59:52
Footage is only live when the video of him saying the word itself is live. If someone else is live and plays that video afterwards, the video contained within is no longer live.
2026-05-18 17:01:55
Not to mention the UMA system will likely be replaced in the not so distant future, which makes it quite risky to hold the tokens.
2026-05-18 17:05:53
Don't get too attached to the filename, a file is still a file. It existed before the stream operator decided to play it. Other streams originate after that stream.
2026-05-18 17:07:29
Different rules. That market only requires Trump to say the word in bilateral meetings with Xi. Basically what the rules should have been here (to prevent this situation), but weren't.
2026-05-18 17:07:59
Look at your argument, lol
2026-05-18 17:09:53
Also they make markets about specific events, not like Polymarket does. They had done one the previous day specifically about the Bilat, and then another specifically for the Bilateral Tea, so whatever is said within the bounds of each event, is considered.
2026-05-18 17:14:38
Different rules, as I wrote below - that market is specifically about the Bilateral Tea, having no live requirement.
2026-05-18 17:19:00
Look at the White House schedule. "Bilateral Tea" was defined as a distinct, separate event. This market is about any events featuring both leaders which are live. That market is JUST about the "Bilateral Tea" specific event, without the "live" requirement.
2026-05-18 17:20:59
The rules there are clearly about Bilateral Tea. It does not require live. If it happened during the Bilateral Tea, it is fine. This is a multi-event mention, requiring each event to be live.
2026-05-18 17:28:49
Must be live
2026-05-18 17:33:57
Prediction markets contain contracts, they're to be interpreted like real contracts.
2026-05-18 17:36:03
I suggest looking at the full rules
2026-05-18 17:39:02
There is a difference between myself turning the camera on and it taking some time to reach you, and myself taking a tape recorded a short while ago and playing it for you in my channel's livestream. That difference is, UNFORTUNATELY, what made this market get clarified like this. I am not happy with this.
2026-05-18 17:41:10
Indeed it is, the market resolution seems wrong, isn't wrong, and people will make drama about it.
2026-05-18 17:45:25
When the footage was seen by you, the events had finished for a while already. That means it "not live".
2026-05-18 17:54:19
That's a livestream, but the actual content isnt. It's only being played "live".
2026-05-18 17:55:36
Spamming that won't make it resolve to YES. You're just making people feel NO is wrong, but most of YES is just hopefuls. Face the facts.
2026-05-18 18:55:53
They would tell you it was not live.
2026-05-18 19:02:17
Please stop reposting the same thing over and over. We've been through the facts; Argue for an improvement of rules, instead of attacking an already settled market.
2026-05-18 19:03:46
They are not desperate. They're just farming the free 2-3% while you are wasting your time compiling evidence that is not valid.
2026-05-18 19:24:37
You bought your yes at 1.4c, sure, you're being "scammed".
2026-05-18 19:26:18
YES wants to win money, but that's all. They perceive a chance to 50x earnings, which is false.
2026-05-18 19:29:34
You can quite literally buy NO and earn $, but you deliberately choose to give money away.
2026-05-18 19:32:09
NO is a bond; Whales know how it will resolve, because they understand the rules and their functioning. They are not scamming anyone, they are merely taking the free 2% from those who misunderstand. The only thing you accomplish with posts like this is discredit the website, which harms EVERYONE using it.
2026-05-18 19:38:29
Check UMA Discord for the core evidence disproving the existence of a livestream; Nonwithstanding, this was a closed door meeting, filmed by a restricted press pool that had to hand it over for later broadcast. Similar to myself giving you a tape containing footage of events, once I get out of the area, and you play it on your news channel. That is what happened.
2026-05-18 19:44:48
The other site has a centralized resolution system, and they have rules on how their resolution process works. The site ultimately makes a best-effort call based on the rules, including the handling of special cases. Some might not agree with certain resolutions, but when you use the site, you are agreeing with how it operates. The same applies here. The great majority of resolutions end up being very sound. The only recent resolution I flatly disagree with was Russia x Ukraine ceasefire having resolved as YES based on a 3-day truce, I think that was quite wrong.
2026-05-18 19:50:51
P4 only means "The YES proposal was not correct at proposal time". The reason it is P4 is because the rules allowed for more events to happen until the final deadline, not because the already-available footage could still be valid.
2026-05-18 19:54:57
If UMA did not exist, the clarification would simply be the final resolution, as is with centralized platforms. Instead of a third party reviewing a dispute, there would be a single entity making a centralized decision.
2026-05-18 21:04:49
There is no new rule. You're wasting your time here.
2026-05-18 21:07:14
Live is live. If the filming and the streaming is done at the same time -- as the events are happening, it is YES. If not, it is NO. Your argument implies that if the filming ends and closely afterwards, the recording is re-played, that is good enough, because the footage was shown to the audiences shortly after the events had been recorded, which is not the case.
2026-05-18 21:08:57
Nothing is fishy. Those with the money have been here long enough to know the correct resolution, and position accordingly, the rest are just hoping for an impossible outcome, thinking it is possible. All that is happening here is YES holders are donating to NO holders without realizing, and ALSO discrediting the website as bonus.
2026-05-18 21:10:36
All YES holders are plainly DONATING to NO holders, without realizing. Believing this can turn around is believing in the impossible. It's already settled with due evidence.
2026-05-18 21:13:41
A vote does not represent one person, each vote is one UMA TOKEN. Most UMA tokens are held by impartial UMA staff who do not participate in the markets.
2026-05-18 21:15:03
There is no scam, there are rules and evidence. Most YES buyers came in at 1-3c, hoping to turn this around, but that's entirely the reason why the NO is so high priced; It's a settled matter.
2026-05-18 21:15:59
That market is different. Nearly all interviews are pre-recorded, and the rules are DIFFERENT to allow pre-recorded footage to be valid (it still has to air on the channel's live broadcast)
2026-05-18 21:17:28
That market has different rules. A Fox interview is typically pre-recorded. It obviously can't have the same rules as normal mentions, or it will be a complete scam.
2026-05-18 22:01:31
No, no, it's always the people with small money, the hopefuls, who want to pull a x100 by being very verbal about the platform. Integrity is upholding the rules as defined even at the cost of heavy negative publicity from false claims.
2026-05-18 22:02:21
There is no scam. You're wasting YOUR time, YOUR money, AND helping hurt the website by repeating this.
2026-05-18 22:04:29
You are wasting your time and your money, hoping for an impossible resolution, and hurting the site in the process. There is no chance for YES. The evidence is right there on UMA channel. This is not something "made up". It's legit. Just go there and check it yourself. Stop feeding the fire. You will not win. You're just making it worse for everyone. If the rules are bad, join the discussion to improve them for future markets.
2026-05-18 22:05:18
Nobody deletes comments. It's just a safety filter to prevent scam links.
2026-05-18 22:08:01
Trump said Iran. Nobody is denying that. It just doesn't qualify because there is a STRICT clause on the rules about live events. And after everything was said and done, you come here, buy YES very cheap, and start contesting it like you're some sort of victim, like THOUSANDS have done before.
2026-05-18 22:09:37
I was talking about ANOTHER MARKET. That other market is for an interview on Fox. Interviews are typically recorded earlier, they commonly are not live. That is why, for that market, the RULES are DIFFERENT.
2026-05-18 22:12:08
Translation - P4 means: "The YES proposal is wrong at the time of proposal". It means that, because the market deadline was May 15 (Beijing Time), there still could be more events that could happen until that point in time, so the market can not resolve to NO based on what had transpired by that point.
2026-05-18 23:43:07
There is no battlefield, only donations. You can't accept reality. Your chance for x100 never existed. Money understands the rules.
2026-05-18 23:43:59
The other market has a whole different resolution process. Apples are not oranges.
2026-05-18 23:47:51
Check evidence on UMA discord, before you come post here.
2026-05-18 23:48:18
He won't lose
2026-05-18 23:51:55
When the market reopens for proposal, whoever disputes one of the "NO" proposals will lose the $750 bond per dispute per bracket. You have been warned.
2026-05-19 01:38:02
All three markets have been re-proposed as NO. If there is no dispute in 2h50min, it will automatically settle as NO.
2026-05-19 16:19:14
Better than losing $152
2026-05-19 16:21:06
Even if you destroy the site, you won't win, because the site will uphold its integrity. As I said in UMA, this is a terrible, undesirable resolution, but the correct resolution. No amount of pressure will deviate the market from what is right, according to the rules. The rules should be better, to avoid scenarios like this. All of you YES speculating on 1c shares are just wasting your TIME and your MONEY.
2026-05-19 16:40:47
Nobody is "scared", I'm just trying to help, sell your yes. You have no chance.
2026-05-19 16:41:28
You forgot to complete the phrase. You can join YES at 1c and LOSE, or join NO at 99c and WIN.
2026-05-19 16:43:24
Untrue. Even if you actually pull this off, which is unrealistic because the price of a token goes up exponentially is you buy large amounts - Polymarket will detect it was a fraudulent attack on the voting system and use the "emergency resolve" mechanism. Polymarket themselves proposed NO. There is not even a figment of possibility for you.
2026-05-19 16:45:12
A "NO" resolution is not fraudulent. It's a bad resolution, but the correct resolution. Don't believe the spammers here. Check the UMA Discord for clear, undisputable evidence.
2026-05-19 16:51:12
Well, I am trying to help, but you seem determined to burn $2.2k.
2026-05-19 16:53:20
The word "live" was always in the rules. It was not "invented".
2026-05-19 16:56:48
The meeting site had blocked cellular signal. Not only it wasn't live, it was impossible to make any sort of live transmission from inside that place.
2026-05-19 17:02:44
The price isn't at 99.9c because of people like you. But not only that, 99.9c is a bad bond, because there are other safe markets that would give you a bigger return in 3 days. Sitting with your money locked on this market for just 0.1% return is not good. That's why nobody bothers to eat up all the shares. The price is a reflection of what NO holders consider a fair payment for the amount of time they're locking up money for.
2026-05-19 17:04:36
Delay is inherent of every live transmission. There is no possibility of a live transmission without delay. But this was not live, it was footage recorded inside a site with blocked off cellular signal that was handed over to press as the filming crew left the site.
2026-05-19 17:05:04
Because, in their full rules, they accept footage that is not strictly live, but is relayed in the form of live footage. Different rules.
2026-05-19 18:18:41
1. When rules say live, they use their own definition of live. You might have other definitions, but they're ignored. For example, "OpenAI" is considered a compound word on this website.
2. Same as above. Don't get too clung on any external definition. You can't win a dispute by citing a technicality. For the purposes of this market, live is footage that is being broadcast as it's being filmed (I believe that is the most widely accepted definition).
3. NO, because a "LIVE" label being displayed by any party does not constitute proof that the footage shown inside the transmission is actually live. A live news show can display footage of yesterday, that footage is not live.
4. There is evidence the existing footage was a recording. It's technical evidence, you may check it in the dispute threads of UMA Discord.
5. NO, anyone can make a livestream on YouTube or other streaming platforms, by playing video. If I feed a platform any video in realtime it's going to be shown as a live by that platform, that does not constitute any proof that what I am filming is live.
6. Delay is an assumed part of every broadcast. A livestream is a broadcast that happens as the content is filmed.
7. NO, there simply is evidence the footage is not live.
9. There is evidence the event ended before a specific point in time.
10. Any broadcasts only began after the point where a consensus of reporting signaled the event was over. There is also evidence the content being shown was pre-recorded.
2026-05-19 19:35:18
Because that is a special market that pays you 4% APY for holding shares.
2026-05-19 19:44:28
I understand you are upset, you placed a large order on the book when you saw the price going down from 99.9% for YES, and you did not think about WHY it was going down. You thought it was free money. It wasn't, the price was going down for a reason. You are invariably going to lose, and you know that. The only variable here is the amount of damage you are going to cause to the site. Do you really want this site to disappear? What would you gain from that?
I'll admit, the rules can use a lot of improvement, for some of the markets. Anyone can propose a discussion to revise rules for better future markets. That is what you should do. You took a bet out of your own free will, believing that it was going to YES, and the ones selling to you were wrong. Don't try to evade reality. You lost, you feel burned, and you want to cause damage. You might accomplish that, but you are not going to shift a resolution that has already been settled based on evidence, just because you think it should.
2026-05-19 19:53:37
YES holders, this market is not going to resolve to YES. Check UMA discord for evidence. You're just collectively daydreaming, because this resolution "looks" wrong, it's not wrong, there is precedent. Any of the arguments circulating here are just misleading or false. Whales have absolutely zero influence over clarifications. It's a central authority who makes their judgement independently. The same is done on the other website, the difference is that there, there is no dispute system like UMA. It's just their decision and that's it. The rules there are not the same as here, they are in fact VERY different. A correct resolution don't necessarily mean a popular resolution. This one is highly unpopular, because this entire situation should not have happened. The rules should have foreseen this possibility for China events, that there might be difficulties related to livestreams inside the country. But the rules stayed the way they have been before. Any user can propose changes to the rules. Bad rules happen, it is not a fault of the site. By insisting on YES, you are just wasting your time, your money, and working against the site.
2026-05-19 20:38:16
They're not working against the site, they are misled by what seems to be the truth and is not the truth. Some realize they are going to lose and are trying to cause a ruckus, others are just going along with it.
2026-05-19 20:39:50
I'm giving it straight to you. Whether you want to listen or not. The rules have always been upheld strictly for non-live events.
2026-05-19 20:40:59
No matter how much you desire for it to happen, it won't go YES. Nobody is denying the terms were said, but the (bad, should be fixed) rule prevents it from resolving YES. That's all.
2026-05-20 00:28:52
The live rule has always existed. Stop spreading fake news.
2026-05-20 00:31:00
Peng was said during the State Banquet, different event, streamed live by the White House.
2026-05-20 00:32:25
The rules NEVER change. Clarifications are made based on the rules.
2026-05-20 00:34:23
You can play a recording on YouTube in the form of a livestream. That is not proof of live footage.
2026-05-20 00:35:35
Please do a conscious effort to understand why the NO resolution is fair. Head over to UMA Discord and check the evidence posts by yourselves. False claims of scams are only going to hurt the website as a whole.
2026-05-20 01:20:09
The resolution source will be video of the events.
2026-05-20 01:21:38
You didn't turn your 3c into $1, so it's a scam?
2026-05-20 01:22:21
False. There can be no further disputes after this. Once this vote is done, the market will definitely settle and the NO shares will be redeemable for $1 each.
2026-05-20 01:23:43
False. If they banned anyone it's for violating their code of conduct, common sense stuff such as spamming or offending people. They would never ban anyone for arguing / discussing a dispute.
2026-05-20 01:25:42
You would never have, because you bought at 1-2c, and the price was never that on the other site. Because the rules are different there. To have won there, you would have to have bought it before the word was said, at its market price.
2026-05-20 01:34:45
False. If a dispute happened in April and the market settled in December, that means there simply the market had a settlement date of December, it was disputed in April and the dispute was rejected (P4), so the market remained open for the rest of the year, until it could resolve NO. There is no way to stall a dispute indefinitely after market deadline.
2026-05-20 03:42:51
I can sell at any moment. I don't even care about winning.
2026-05-20 03:44:04
They post like it's going to change something, my worry is the damage they do to the site. They cause themselves to lose money and get mad in the process. When you are mad, you do illogical things.
2026-05-20 03:45:28
False. Polymarket themselves clarified, and evidence indicates Polymarket themselves proposed NO on the final dispute. They hold the emergency resolution power, but it has never been used before.
2026-05-20 04:07:35
I'm twisting nothing, I have not told a single lie on this comment section, you probably are aware of that.
2026-05-20 04:08:55
Whales do not hold UMA tokens, they do not vote, and even if they did, they would not have enough tokens to force their resolution through. The largest token holders are independent UMA staff.
2026-05-20 18:02:55
Most people on YES never even bet on mentions. They are jumping on the bandwagon of the false promise x500 gains. Stating the facts only. Check my earlier posts. I beg of you, DO NOT DISCREDIT THIS WEBSITE. This was only a sad case of rules working against their intention. The RULES should be made better. No one has fault here.
2026-05-20 18:06:27
Misleading claim - Pool reports are always posted after the events. You can see that pattern every single day, for every single event the White House Pool, be it the In-town Pool or the Out-of-town / Foreign pool, there is always a LONG interval. The timestamp of the pool's post containing the relevant remarks matching the moment of the first footage release only serves to further prove it was not live, that the whole thing had ended and the reporters covering it have had the time to publish a write-up for the other reporters.
2026-05-20 18:08:10
The words that resolved YES, did not resolve YES because of the Bilateral Tea remarks. There were events which actually fulfilled the requirements, such as the State Banquet in which Trump and Xi also participated. That was where Trump said Madam Peng -- He extended Xi and Peng an invitation to come to the White House later this year.
2026-05-20 18:30:29
You're confusing things. Even if there is a YouTube transmission of something, it doesn't necessarily imply what you are watching is live. That is the problem with this market. You saw something that looked live, but wasn't. It's hard to accept that, it's easier to call it a scam.
2026-05-20 19:07:51
The NO holders don't hold most tokens. They don't control the voters. Read about it. Stop saying something to try to hopelessly pump your 0.5c shares. You're just burning your money. NO was certain since the confirmation the footage was pre-recorded. No amount of attacking will change that. You might find yourselves without a site to bet on.
2026-05-20 19:12:18
Sorry, but nobody has proof, because it was not live. The proof that it was a recording is right there on UMA discord - check the dispute threads.
2026-05-21 00:15:12
Foolish whales? You realize that Polymarket themselves proposed this market as NO?
2026-05-21 00:25:58
You are losing your money
2026-05-21 00:33:20
WAKE UP. Polymarket proposed this as NO themselves. There is on-chain evidence; Besides, they posted the clarification you see above, evaluating the available footage as non-live and thus, invalid for resolution.
2026-05-21 00:35:37
I'll buy more NO just to make a point to you
2026-05-21 02:06:41
Don't believe "shadowwizard", this cannot go P4 again. P4 means "Early Resolution", now it's definitive since the market's deadline has elapsed and the proposal is post-deadline. When the clock reaches zero, the market will resolve / settle.
2026-05-21 02:14:44
The Trump-Xi visit was not cancelled. What are you talking about?
2026-05-21 04:02:34
Because you're putting so little money on YES that whales can match your bet by a thousand times.
2026-05-21 04:05:40
There are 3.7 million shares at 0.2c. Costs about $7400 to buy them, and you'd get 3.7 million with a YES resolution. Don't do it! You will lose $7400.
2026-05-21 17:39:21
🚨 WARNING, DISPUTING AGAIN IS IMPOSSIBLE - PEOPLE ASKING FOR DISPUTE MONEY ARE TRYING TO STEAL FROM YOU 🚨
2026-05-21 20:32:36
gg
2026-05-22 23:03:25
Crazy Y holders still believing in a x1000.
2026-05-22 23:04:26
Want to win? TRADE PROPERLY. Don't try to flip settled markets. You're just burning your cash, bandwagon hoppers.
2026-05-22 23:08:49
Come back in 52 minutes, see that area to the right? it will be replaced by a button to redeem your shares for $0 dollars. Congratulations!
2026-05-22 23:10:16
This chat in 50 minutes: "Don't redeem!!!"
2026-05-22 23:45:45
Fake news, it does matter. You don't understand because you're a bandwagon hopper who thinks you can x1000 on settled disputes.
2026-05-22 23:48:39
You guys are clowns, didn't make your x1000 and accuse the site? Go read up on the rules, fools.
2026-05-23 03:35:35
This market did not resolve to NO because of any schemes. It resolved NO because the rules dictate the footage must be LIVE, and there is a clear previous precedent of what is STRICTLY considered LIVE. By buying YES after the fact, you have literally just wasted your money, and what led you to do that was bandwagoning. Now as crappy losers, you all will just keep making dirty, false claims about the website integrity, maybe without understanding why it resolved the way it did, but at least knowing that you were trying to win a battle against the smart money, who knew the rules, who knew the precedents, who have been here since FOREVER and understand it better than you. Go ahead, keep blaming the website, make it lose users, make it SHUT DOWN. Then maybe you will all be a little happy, without a goddamn prediction market to bet on.
2026-05-23 03:37:12
Stop saying bullshit. UMA voters don't win anything from the resolution, I guarantee you that. (All they get is the staking rewards - the outcome does not matter).
2026-05-23 03:42:40
Fake news. This platform is extremely trustworthy. Neither Polymarket nor UMA have ANY incentive to favor one outcome over another. Head over to UMA Discord and I will answer any questions anyone may have.
2026-05-23 03:43:46
The price never looked good. You just fooled yourself. The outcome was already settled by precedents. Good night.
2026-05-23 03:44:42
Your arguments are of no use because they only prove you are wrong.
2026-05-23 03:45:19
People sent proof the footage is not live. Otherwise the market would have resolved YES.
2026-05-23 04:11:17
Wrong, wrong, and wrong. Look at your bets. You don't know what you're talking about.
2026-05-23 04:19:42
For interview markets, the rules only require the words to be said are AIRED live (e.g. the show needs to play the interview audio/video live).
2026-05-23 04:20:29
This resolution is correct. Stop spamming fake news. I can answer any questions you may have.
2026-05-23 06:05:27
A live label doesn't MEAN IT IS ACTUALLY LIVE. Anyone can put a LABEL on ANYTHING. CNN or FOX can put a LIVE LABEL on a NEWS SHOW with footage from TEN YEARS AGO, THEIR F__ SHOW IS LIVE, not the VIDEO!
2026-05-23 06:06:26
THE WORDS must be said LIVE, not a RECORDING of them
2026-05-23 06:08:07
This resolution is correct. Stop spamming fake news. UMA Discord has all the proof needed. COMMUNITY NOTES should be added to any X posts saying this resolution is fraudulent.
2026-05-23 21:53:08
The MoU ends the conflict indefinitely and sets the groundwork for further talks, which qualifies.
2026-05-23 21:54:28
The fallacy is in that this market doesn't require an actual nuclear deal or the opening of the strait, just an agreement on ending hostilities in a permanent manner.
2026-05-23 22:24:45
The YES sound is setting the groundworks for their claims of "UMA whale fraud, scam, rigged, etc". They'll claim this isn't valid because of the 60-day negotiation period and call it a fraud when it resolves against them. (Especially those buying at 1c)
2026-05-23 22:28:06
What the actual f___ are you doing, can you stop this bullshit? You cannot sue them.
2026-05-23 22:28:41
Stop feeding the flames, just inspect the evidence on UMA Discord.
2026-05-23 22:32:46
Don't be fooled by the below users. They are all new and opportunists who wanted to flip a market disregarding the rules. Don't be lured in by false promises of big payouts in disputed markets, you will most likely LOSE, like these sorry people. The arguments used in this dispute IS HIGHLY MISLEADING, and caused a large number of users to believe that the resolution was wrong. Do not be fooled. Do your own fact checking and analysis.
All the evidence needed to prove the case is on UMA Discord. EVERYONE can verify it.
2026-05-24 03:02:38
All it takes is one Trump truth post saying "I am pleased to announce we have reached an agreement with Iran..." that would be enough for Y
2026-05-24 14:43:54
Y is cooked, this bastard scammed us again
2026-05-24 15:53:46
Anything he announces really, will make it go yes
2026-05-24 17:06:08
The MoU being discussed includes halt of hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah. Wording "Lebanon" is historically understood as Hezbollah.
2026-05-24 17:07:15
The bigger variable here is whether it will be reached, because if it is, it will likely constitute an end to the war.
2026-05-24 17:14:50
Misleading rewording of what was said. "The agreement would prevent escalation of the war and ease pressure on global oil supplies. However, it is unclear whether it will lead to a lasting peace deal that also addresses President Trump’s nuclear demands". "Lasting" in this case, refers to the end of the nuclear threat Iran poses, not the end of the war. The deal as it currently is included the end of the war as a basis.
2026-05-24 18:35:42
That kind of logic will lose you your money
2026-05-24 19:30:09
Nothing unfair has happened on this market. If something resolved to YES here, rest assured Trump has said the word. IF YOU CANNOT FIND WHERE SOMETHING WAS SAID, DOES NOT MEAN IT WASN'T SAID. Anywhere counts - if someone has a recording of him saying it on their phone that no one has - they can resolve it YES by sending the proof to a proposer - the proposer will share it in the proper UMA threads and ensure no one disputes, or if it is disputed, it will be contested appropriately in dispute threads.
2026-05-24 19:31:22
You need to be on a whitelist to be able to propose a market. If you mispropose a market in bad faith, you are banned from it. If something is proposed, the proposer is confident it has been said.
2026-05-24 19:59:03
If it was predictable, why have you not predicted it?
2026-05-24 20:06:26
A lot of smart people are losing a lot of money on this. Most users who are winning are not winning because they were smart. "NO" on announcement by yesterday was a fairly good bet on NO -- or "by May 24" yesterday night after we saw it was going to take longer, but everything indicated an imminent deal (and still does). Trump is just fooling around to appear tough.
2026-05-24 21:16:58
Fake news
2026-05-24 21:36:42
SCAM BELOW - DO NOT CLICK - IT LEADS TO A SCAM WEBSITE DESIGNED TO STEAL YOUR FUNDS.
2026-05-24 21:38:07
DO NOT CLICK ON ANY LINKS INSIDE X POSTS, SCAMMERS ARE USING FAKE WEBSITES TO TRY TO STEAL YOUR FUNDS.
2026-05-24 21:38:11
DO NOT CLICK ON ANY LINKS INSIDE X POSTS, SCAMMERS ARE USING FAKE WEBSITES TO TRY TO STEAL YOUR FUNDS.
2026-05-24 23:46:30
You are too stuck on numbers, we are not dealing with numbers here. This market is about what the subject *says*. "Two million soldiers" resolve "million soldiers" just as well as "One million soldiers".
2026-05-25 02:51:25
No, you lose because Polymarket thinks "250" as a number, not as "Two hundred and fifty"
2026-05-25 02:55:24
The problem isn't doing better rules. You can't objectively say this is a fair resolution. In the lack of rules, the way they clarified is vastly more contrived.
2026-05-25 04:52:55
SCAM BELOW - FAKE WEBSITE
2026-05-25 14:29:11
WAR NO PEACE YES
2026-05-25 17:19:02
Peace is cooked, it's just a ceasefire ☠️
2026-05-25 19:40:06
perhaps but $70 is almost impossible
2026-05-25 21:02:31
SCAMMER BELOW - DO NOT GOOGLE FOR THE ALLEGED SITE - IT IS A SCAM
2026-05-25 21:04:01
DO NOT VISIT ANY WEBSITES CLAIMING TO BE TRADING BOTS THEY ARE SCAMS - YOU ARE GIVING A SCAMMER ACCESS TO YOUR FUNDS - IF YOU WANT A BOT MAKE YOUR OWN
2026-05-25 23:27:59
Ceasefire ending is only one way through which this market resolves. A qualifying strike from US also resolves it as NO
2026-05-26 00:39:29
You're obviously wrong. That's just the preamble of the rules. Further down the conditions are detailed, either the confirmation of the end of the ceasefire, or a US strike on Iran. That second condition resolves to NO even if the ceasefire is still in effect officially.
2026-05-26 02:01:45
The US-Iranian ceasefire will be considered to no longer be in effect if the US government officially publicly confirms [...] that the U.S. conducted a kinetic military action on Iranian soil before the resolution date.
2026-05-26 02:02:24
Get it? The ceasefire doesn't need to end, just US saying they struck Iranian soil, which happened
2026-05-26 02:03:54
The US-Iranian ceasefire will be considered to no longer be in effect if the US government officially publicly confirms [...] that the U.S. conducted a kinetic military action on Iranian soil before the resolution date.
For market purposes it is considered no longer in effect, because US said it struck Iranian soil. Even if in reality, it remains in effect, that doesn't matter for this market.
2026-05-26 02:05:34
Can you read? It says that but it also says that the ceasefire will be considered to no longer be in effect if the US claims it struck Iranian soil. It doesn't matter what your definition of ceasefire is, if the conditions are fulfilled on the market, it's good enough for a resolution.
2026-05-26 02:07:25
US claims it struck Iranian soil = Ceasefire no longer in effect (rules-wise) = market resolves NO. Correct resolution. Stop spamming lies. The market is resolved, there is nothing else for you to do here.
2026-05-26 19:47:26
Even if the war ends, nothing stops one side from restarting it. But realistically, both sides want the permanent end of the conflict. The push is for ending the military conflict as soon as possible. Call it like, Phase 1, Phase 2. On Phase 2 whatever remains to be settled is brought to the table.
2026-05-26 23:46:41
Martingale to the moon
2026-05-26 23:47:40
careful with that assessment, there are heavyweights with extremely large positions on May 31
2026-05-27 00:03:56
I mean people who know what they're doing in these types of bets, are heavily on that position.
2026-05-27 00:05:13
A May 31 NO resolution will be a heavy blow to some big guys who have high PNLs thanks to Geopolitics bets.
2026-05-27 20:48:59
He said it 20 times - sometimes he says it quietly. There was one at the beginning that got cut out from some livestreams.
2026-05-27 21:53:21
Forwarded for feedback, probably doesn't come out until Friday
2026-05-27 23:33:44
because someone asked for it
2026-05-28 00:37:50
not the same thing, though there is a more similar case
2026-05-28 01:13:27
The agreement negotiations are at an advanced stage; Most of the draft has already been settled, the deal being finalized or not depends on a few remaining disagreements getting settled. Unlikely, but not impossible. I think odds might change here come Friday.
2026-05-28 01:14:35
The market turns bearish because of US strikes, but they are very limited in scope and the US may have "telegraphed" it to Iran themselves.
2026-05-31 17:04:31
Yestards are not very smart
2026-05-31 18:19:27
Delusional coping whale, but a lottery ticket is a lottery ticket.
2026-05-31 18:22:35
Ain't a fan of burning $
2026-05-31 18:23:38
Market will go NO at midnight sadly it is cope time for us
2026-05-31 18:34:19
They are really silly keeping pumping this lottery ticket
2026-05-31 18:47:43
Well, Believer is his name.
2026-05-31 18:51:13
Buying at 0.1c hoping for a x1000 is very common in disputes such as this one. Polymarket is a very trustworthy platform. The resolutions are very correct and strictly based on the rules. Do not believe spammers, comments accept anything. DYOR, verify rules and check evidence at UMA Discord Server.
I have no incentive in posting this, aside from defending the truth.
2026-05-31 19:02:11
Yes holders are buying an improbable lottery ticket, but no, I won't pay such a high price for it anymore.
2026-05-31 19:02:45
They probably sold but we won't get evidence of that until it's too late, so we are cooked.
2026-05-31 19:54:39
Today is may 31 and there is nothing
2026-05-31 22:21:07
no, just getting pumped
2026-06-01 02:09:59
The clarification is correct, you just cannot accept what you cannot understand
2026-06-01 02:12:15
true
2026-06-01 02:13:27
Nice fat BTC discount. I love when BTC drops in price.
2026-06-01 02:30:20
Yeah, the fools who stay are the greater ones
2026-06-01 15:15:48
Well, there is a deadline on the rules, the criteria needs to be met by then.
2026-06-03 15:23:26
We are doomed
2026-06-03 15:23:47
Stand up and fight!
2026-06-03 15:34:35
Insider information is not confirmation.
2026-06-03 15:36:26
Would you buy a 100% chance of earning your investment + $50K for $1M? You would because you would then have $1M + $50K. That is what he is doing.
2026-06-03 15:52:09
why not 6
2026-06-03 15:53:26
Question is, will you?
2026-06-03 15:55:00
The market needs evidence of that by the deadline, otherwise, the market is done.
2026-06-03 15:56:34
Any market needs evidence of the fact before the deadline. No evidence = resolves as NO. For any market. The sale confirmation came after the market's end. This has always been this way on prediction markets.
2026-06-03 16:00:43
This market has been manipulated, but the manipulation was in the dispute. The dispute was made to pump the price of YES so that NO could earn a fat payout.
2026-06-03 16:46:02
Shhh, I wanted 99.5
2026-06-03 16:47:09
We're doomed!
2026-06-03 16:52:46
Those are rookie numbers
2026-06-03 16:57:09
C'mon, YES side, you don't have even 15K to fork over?
2026-06-03 18:51:38
You can do it! Just $48K more and the price will be 0.5c
2026-06-03 19:03:06
It's a fraud if your $240 doesn't turn into $70K
2026-06-03 19:03:54
Dump more if you want to make them believe you
2026-06-03 19:06:55
Less than five hours before all the NO gang loses all their millions of dollars, and the YES gang goes from rags to riches!
2026-06-03 19:10:22
Once again drama ensues just because the deadline rule is not written plainly. The fact the sale occurred is worthless if it's only confirmed afterwards. Same for every single market.
2026-06-03 19:11:54
You did not "guess" anything.
2026-06-03 19:15:52
Rules are rules, it doesn't matter if you don't accept it. Proof need to be available by the deadline, if not it's worthless. For example if you have a market about a military strike on a country. If there is no credible consensus of a strike having occurred in news by midnight, it's over. If that consensus turns up in the morning, it's too late. Has happened before.
2026-06-03 19:16:49
Clarification is issued by Polymarket themselves. There is literally no way for YES to win.
2026-06-03 19:18:03
Bobe give big payout
2026-06-03 19:21:27
No, that's not rules, it's a clarification stating the protocol that has always existed. Evidence, for every market, needs to be available by the end of the deadline. If not, the market can then close. This is universal for every market, has always been that way.
2026-06-03 19:23:39
He can't lose it
2026-06-03 19:24:48
The vote is done, it's technically impossible at this point even
2026-06-03 19:56:19
Source = Your imagination
2026-06-03 20:09:25
We're close to losing all our funds.
2026-06-03 21:36:22
NO is doomed!
2026-06-03 22:04:04
The Dentist has a secret weapon to fight cavities!
2026-06-03 22:33:16
He is joking
2026-06-03 22:33:45
It will pass like nothing happened, because nothing happened.
2026-06-03 22:55:51
They themselves posted the clarification about "NO". The deadline rule is a STANDARD that has always been used for every market.
2026-06-03 23:36:28
You mean NO?
2026-06-03 23:36:58
Polymarket has an anti scammer filter, there are certain flagged things.
2026-06-03 23:48:59
His angle is probably a lawsuit, but he will get nothing
2026-06-03 23:57:17
These are the rules of the platform, not something Polymarket invented, appeal to religion fallacy will not sway anyone.
2026-06-03 23:58:27
What is described in the clarification is A STANDARD THAT HAS ALWAYS BEEN USED BY THE SITE, not something Polymarket invented.
2026-06-04 01:00:20
Without the clarification, this would have resolved to NO all the same.
2026-06-04 03:20:35
They made no mistake, new facts after the time never change the outcome, THIS HAS ALWAYS BEEN TRUE, SINCE THE START OF POLYMARKET.
2026-06-04 03:21:05
New facts after the deadline NEVER changed the outcome, THIS HAS ALWAYS BEEN TRUE, SINCE THE START OF POLYMARKET.
2026-06-04 17:22:19
New facts after the deadline (in this case MAY 31, 2026) NEVER changed the outcome, THIS HAS ALWAYS BEEN TRUE, SINCE THE START OF POLYMARKET.
2026-06-06 14:43:47
This was already discussed in a previous dispute. If an artist just appears during the halftime show, it counts as a guest appearance, and thus, the market will resolve to YES.
2026-06-06 15:04:07
🚨 BELOW MESSAGE IS A SCAM. THE SUPPOSED BOT IS FAKE AND WILL STEAL YOUR FUNDS. DO NOT GOOGLE. REPORT THE SITE TO GOOGLE IMMEDIATELY.
2026-06-06 15:04:49
DO NOT COPY-PASTE LINKS, THEY ARE ALL SCAMS. YOU WILL LOSE YOUR FUNDS IF YOU ACCESS THEIR SITE.
2026-06-06 21:02:21
🚨 DO NOT GOOGLE ANY WEBSITES POSTED IN COMMENTS, SCAMMERS ARE SPAMMING SCAM SITES EVERYWHERE. THE BELOW TWO POSTS - BOTH ACCOUNTS ARE CONTROLLED BY SCAMMERS AND BOTH ARE AUTOMATICALLY POSTING IN A LOT OF OTHER MARKETS
2026-06-06 23:40:18
🚨 DO NOT GOOGLE ANY WEBSITES POSTED IN COMMENTS, SCAMMERS ARE SPAMMING SCAM SITES EVERYWHERE. AS FOR THE BELOW POSTS - ACCOUNTS ARE CONTROLLED BY SCAMMERS AND BOTH ARE AUTOMATICALLY POSTING IN A LOT OF OTHER MARKETS
2026-06-07 15:06:32
The rats deleted their comments, because of me - keep on the look out, do NOT google anything from comments. Do not believe on anything that is posted here
2026-06-07 17:45:59
🚨 THE SITE POSTED BY "moneydontsleep" IS A SCAM SITE. IT LOOKS LIKE A CONVERSATION, BOTH ACCOUNTS ARE AUTOMATED AND CONTROLLED BY THE SCAMMER. THE SITE IS FAKE AND IS DESIGNED TO STEAL ALL YOUR FUNDS. DO NOT GOOGLE ANY SITE IN COMMENTS.
SITES LIKE THESE DO NOT EXIST!! 🚨
2026-06-07 17:46:13
THE SITE POSTED BY "moneydontsleep" IS A SCAM SITE. IT LOOKS LIKE A CONVERSATION, BOTH ACCOUNTS ARE AUTOMATED AND CONTROLLED BY THE SCAMMER. THE SITE IS FAKE AND IS DESIGNED TO STEAL ALL YOUR FUNDS. DO NOT GOOGLE ANY SITE IN COMMENTS.
SITES LIKE THESE DO NOT EXIST!!
2026-06-07 21:53:04
Funny, Iran attacks Israel, Iran closes their airspace, Trump puts Bibi on alert for a joint attack operation, and the market pumps!
2026-06-08 00:05:33
🚨 THE SITE POSTED BY "mountainking" IS A SCAM SITE. IT LOOKS LIKE A CONVERSATION, BOTH ACCOUNTS ARE AUTOMATED AND CONTROLLED BY THE SCAMMER. THE SITE IS FAKE AND IS DESIGNED TO STEAL ALL YOUR FUNDS. DO NOT GOOGLE ANY SITE IN COMMENTS.
SITES LIKE THESE DO NOT EXIST!! 🚨
2026-06-08 01:02:26
REPORT EVERY COMMENT YOU SEE SIMILAR TO THE BELOW ONE
2026-06-08 03:57:13
🚨 DO NOT ACCESS THE BELOW WEBSITE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. SUCH TOOLS DO NOT EXIST, THEY ARE IMPOSSIBLE. THE ENTIRE WEBSITE IS JUST FAKE AND REQUESTS A LOGIN CODE FROM THE REAL SITE. WHEN YOU LOG IN THERE YOU ARE GIVING YOUR REAL CODE TO A SCAMMER
2026-06-08 14:25:48
I don't think it would count if he says that. Needs to be a new thing
2026-06-08 14:38:00
Trump's post from two hours ago refers to a ceasefire between Iran and Israel, which is kind of weird, because it implies the already-existing ceasefire no longer exists? In either way, only a US-Iran announcement would count, even if he announces a ceasefire has been agreed upon between Iran and Israel, it will not count.
2026-06-08 17:26:35
Peace imminent. Daddy Trump will make Bibi shake hands with the Supreme Leader
2026-06-08 17:32:47
SPURS IN 7
2026-06-08 17:37:42
Well he could choose to make the ceasefire that he declared himself as lasting "indefinitely" as a more "official" thing. But only works if he includes US in the equation.
2026-06-09 16:47:07
We are all getting f__ manipulated by an old man's social network posts. Over and over and over.
2026-06-09 17:30:07
Game 1 - Knicks
Game 2 - Knicks
Game 3 - Spurs
Game 4 - Spurs
Game 5 - Knicks
Game 6 - Spurs
Game 7 - Spurs
SPURS IN 7
2026-06-09 18:17:54
If Hezbollah is understood to be involved it will resolve YES
2026-06-09 18:21:02
The UMA resolution was not a scam. Israel was never at war with Lebanon, it is at war with Hezbollah. Rest assured this market will not resolve without an actual acknowledgement from Hezbollah though
2026-06-09 19:09:13
Your position size betrays your confidence level, though
2026-06-09 19:09:40
But probably not yeah
2026-06-09 21:58:23
Keep that blockade up
2026-06-10 17:07:36
ALLAH BE PRAISED!
2026-06-11 02:01:33
I said Spurs in 7, you didn't listen
2026-06-11 02:44:41
Technically true, but Polymarket accepted it as qualifying so nothing you can do.
2026-06-11 02:45:36
Because the post from Trump was deemed to be valid for what the rules require.
2026-06-11 03:34:45
Spurs in 7 still
2026-06-11 03:42:17
3-1 today, then 3-2, then 3-3, then 3-4
2026-06-11 21:05:29
lol ▲
2026-06-12 01:08:12
Just talked to Trump he told me he signed it
2026-06-12 03:12:31
Might wanna sell that NO bag, another post might not be so "informal".
2026-06-12 13:49:12
Yes
2026-06-12 13:50:16
Buy NO then
2026-06-12 14:24:31
Just some hopefuls left, don't worry, the big NO geniuses will win, the LOW IQ group will lose... once again
2026-06-12 14:50:35
It doesn't matter because the clarification is essentially overriding the rules. What was an announcement, now requires substance
2026-06-12 15:01:05
NO is on discount, buy buy buy
2026-06-12 15:47:33
🚨 SCAM BELOW, DO NOT GOOGLE
2026-06-12 17:01:50
The market did not decide on anything, it's just FOMO because they said it's close
2026-06-12 17:02:04
Back on the smart side I see!
2026-06-12 18:17:45
What happened with the 11K NO
2026-06-12 18:58:20
NO entry opportunity
2026-06-12 18:59:49
Great insight
2026-06-12 19:59:03
Look at the price! The agreement will happen end of the year, not now.
2026-06-12 21:09:46
Next few days, June 12 is 100% cooked. Literal zero chance of this happening today.
2026-06-12 21:36:49
Dollars on sale at 97c
2026-06-14 00:15:07
The APY is great, there is loads more for you at 98c
2026-06-14 16:42:52
Is it permanent this time
2026-06-15 12:57:41
Here comes the clowns, calling it scam once more, do you have no shame? Why do we have a friggin SIGN MARKET (which DID NOT go YES) https://polymarket.com/event/us-and-iran-sign-an-agreement-byptptpt-20260611221049850
Why do we have this market if we need a signing to resolve YES here, you doofuses?
READ the goddamn rules before you come and waste your cash
2026-06-15 12:59:25
Both the governments of the United States and Iran provide clear public confirmation that a qualifying agreement has been definitively established. Negotiations, statements of progress, or other statements which do not constitute a definitive announcement that a qualifying agreement has been reached will not count.
Both governments reached a definitive agreement. Official statements are acceptable as definitive announcements. ✅️
2026-06-15 13:00:52
And yet you vote on the losing option
2026-06-15 13:09:15
Think a little before you call anything a scam.
You are just biased, because you jumped into some dispute bandwagon that had been already settled, hoping for x1000.
The Lebanon ceasefire from the earlier market resolved correctly - the ceasefire incorporates Hezbollah.
The "get rich quick" NO side had bought shares cheaply and thought, "hey, Hezbollah has not made a direct statement, this is a scam!".
However, they were wrong, since the rules also accept a consensus of credible reporting. Hezbollah did not have to actually make a direct statement, so long as you could verify that a ceasefire had taken place which involved Hezbollah and Israel. That is simply the truth of it.
2026-06-15 13:09:30
The rules also accept a consensus of credible reporting. Hezbollah did not have to actually make a direct statement, so long as you could verify that a ceasefire had taken place which involved Hezbollah and Israel. That is simply the truth of it.
2026-06-15 13:52:53
Oops, deal already signed electronically yesterday. You just lost your whole argument fools
2026-06-15 15:07:58
nobody is gonna dispute this because its a losing fight
2026-06-15 15:44:46
Disputed! ✨️
2026-06-15 15:52:15
Disputed! ⚡️
2026-06-16 02:04:10
Fair and official way = x1000 win for you
2026-06-16 02:04:22
Fair and official way = x1000 win for you 😃
2026-06-16 14:00:05
Do not give up warriors! Fight for the truth!
2026-06-16 14:16:34
Yeah it got signed.
2026-06-16 14:17:08
It doesn't even need to be signed but yeah it did get signed
2026-06-16 14:31:21
I always side with the truth. In other markets where the 0.1c buyers want to flip a market, I usually voice against them, in favor of what is right (the prevailing resolution). But in this particular case, there is a market that already resolved for June 13 which completely disproves the clarification.
https://polymarket.com/event/us-announces-location-or-date-of-us-x-iran-deal-signing-byptptpt-20260611223337443
UMA is voting based on the clarification for June 11, which does not apply to June 13's Truth Social post by Trump.
2026-06-16 14:34:16
The rules of that market require a definitive announcement that something will be signed by Trump, which means the fact that resolved as YES for June 13, means Trump's Truth Social post (which was used to resolve that market), must be considered a definitive announcement. And the premise for the NO vote is that this is not a definitive announcement, hence, a NO resolution for "June 13" is in direct contradiction with the other market's "June 13" resolution.
2026-06-16 18:32:10
I believe it is the correct resolution, but I don't believe it will win.
2026-06-16 18:34:53
Tragic when the correct resolution loses. When you announce a signing date, you're announcing the US and Iran have reached an agreement. It satisfies the clause:
- An announcement that the US and Iran have agreed to a new temporary framework under which the ceasefire would continue as Iran gradually reopens the Strait of Hormuz and the United States begins to unfreeze Iranian assets would qualify.
2026-06-16 18:39:15
I think this dispute unfortunately was left up to UMA, Polymarket did not want to clarify again, and they will default to voting accordingly to the earlier clarification.
2026-06-16 18:41:19
YES was proposed in an attempt to preemptive signal that a significant amount of users believe is the correct resolution. The reason for NO is simple metagame - the large money assumes UMA will vote in the direction of the existing clarification, which overrides the more flexible / lenient rules on the market, which would arguably accept Trump's post as a qualifying announcement.
2026-06-16 18:46:58
It's very possible that the only reason why June 13 will resolve to "NO" is that there was the prior June 11 dispute, which users tried to force with much weaker evidence, that arguably did not actually satisfy the rules. So because of that first dispute, and the resulting clarification, the actually convincing case for "June 13" is brushed aside.
2026-06-17 01:48:01
yes is not winning
2026-06-17 16:15:36
Why would they sign electronically if the electronic signing already took place on Sunday?
2026-06-17 16:20:31
I am well aware of the rules.
2026-06-17 16:28:24
At 97.460% consensus the vote is
90.56% (P4 - EARLY REQUEST)
9.44% (P2 - YES)
2026-06-17 16:31:37
More than 1M tokens voted YES which is a sign there is a portion of voters dissenting from the favored pick.
2026-06-17 16:33:09
Can you prove this draft is from the real document?
2026-06-17 22:54:12
can very well be a 0-0
2026-06-18 00:44:43
Panama played very well in the first half
2026-06-21 13:11:55
Spain is undervalued, not sure about Portugal
2026-06-21 21:04:10
Prophet
2026-06-22 19:33:02
There is no guarantee the price will go up because of favoritism, check this https://polymarket.com/event/world-cup-nation-to-reach-round-of-16
2026-06-22 19:35:12
Go Croatia lol
2026-06-22 19:36:10
don't assume teams will go up if they win a match
2026-06-23 16:26:32
you are correct
2026-06-23 16:27:54
Except that if Panama or Ghana draws you lose both ways.
Just trust Croatia
2026-06-23 16:33:33
Não sei o que o market está fumando, mas igualar o Brasil com os EUA, não dá
2026-06-23 16:36:03
Difficult to predict how the market will price.
The market assesses the likeliness of a team winning the tournament, so winning doesn't necessarily mean a pump here.
The market does make mistakes though
2026-06-23 22:05:40
Buy NO
2026-06-24 17:06:13
While they do defend well, Uruguay drew 2-2 due to incompetence, a different team would not have conceded.
2026-06-28 01:41:38
vai pegar Portugal
2026-06-29 17:54:42
Sell Brazil they ain't winning
2026-06-29 18:05:02
Cape Verde won't win the World Cup, that's why the market won't give you an exit
2026-06-29 19:08:53
It was a strategy, when I say something will happen doesn't happen (wink wink)
2026-06-29 19:43:36
No game is won before it starts. Don't underestimate Germany.
2026-06-29 19:57:54
Which ones would you like to see
2026-06-29 19:58:14
There will be more markets
2026-06-29 23:42:19
I'm telling you, every time I say something the opposite happens, I said Brazil was out and they remained, I said Germany was cheap and they got sent back home XD
2026-06-29 23:49:19
Paraguay just beat Germany, worth just 0.1c more. They're just extreme underdogs buddy. They held defense entire game. You don't win WC like this
2026-06-29 23:50:18
Paraguay beating France is impossible. France is too talented to not crack a hole through their backline.
2026-06-30 04:00:25
Neverlands
2026-06-30 19:24:37
Portugal team seems very unappealing
2026-06-30 19:25:40
you can fetch 700K cape verde shares at $700, what a bargain!
2026-06-30 21:53:00
I can see that
2026-07-01 02:53:04
france did 🤣
2026-07-01 02:54:03
Argentina at the Finals. Replay of last World Cup
2026-07-01 16:55:41
Buy more
2026-07-01 16:56:04
world cup finals Paraguay vs Congo
2026-07-01 18:02:37
Participation medal
2026-07-01 22:20:00
Bel
2026-07-02 01:04:27
Gium
2026-07-02 23:55:57
The issue here is that France has an easy path to the semifinals. They're priced as if they're already there, while Spain has to face probably Portugal and Belgium.
2026-07-04 21:29:40
France can't even score against Paraguay, you're paying 37C FOR THEM!?
2026-07-05 16:35:26
https://polymarket.com/event/what-will-the-announcers-say-during-brazil-vs-norway-world-cup-match-20260705030913011
2026-07-05 22:46:21
Brazil were objectively better for most of the match, the ball didn't go in, pressure mounted and Haaland found the back of the net at the crucial time.
2026-07-05 22:54:38
KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK
2026-07-06 02:06:22
OK, so you like losing
2026-07-06 13:56:12
USA is not going home today. Because they're already at home!
2026-07-07 00:21:20
BELGIUM?
2026-07-07 18:18:47
Mamahuevos de Messi, no van a ganar de Inglaterra, jajajajajaja
2026-07-10 17:48:52
Belgium winning is not much of a miracle, but if they win their odds won't climb much further
2026-07-10 21:05:02
I actually think Norway will win
2026-07-11 17:38:25
We're down to six and we still don't know who takes it lol
2026-07-11 17:42:15
No. Norway will ship England back home. Argentina will advance narrowly.
In the Semifinals, Norway will eliminate Argentina through set piece scares. Messi will score but will not keep up with the goal count.
The other semifinal will be won by France in a narrow contest where Spain struggles to finish and France struggles to score, but France makes less finishing mistakes.
The Finals will be France vs Norway and France should win that with more ease, making it clear they are the winners by the end of the first half.
France are champions.
2026-07-11 17:43:57
Well, we kinda do
2026-07-12 00:23:52
Just buy France
2026-07-12 00:32:44
If France wins against Spain, their odds will become at least 58%. Depending on their adversary, more.
2026-07-12 00:56:35
Because they are weak compared to the bigger teams
2026-07-14 13:27:25
rigged by god
2026-07-14 13:28:18
Bet on Spain, you shall be in pain
2026-07-14 14:23:44
If you want to dance like a ballerina, then just bet on Argentina.
2026-07-14 14:27:10
This is it. The Final Four. All the distraction is removed. Take your picks, gentlemen
2026-07-14 14:33:11
You can bet that the Finals will be France vs England at 33c here:
https://polymarket.com/event/world-cup-finals-exact-matchup-20260708195422328
2026-07-14 18:44:32
🤣
2026-07-14 19:52:36
Calm down tiger, it was just a penalty
2026-07-14 19:54:13
France is so favored by the market that even losing 0-1 at halftime, the market still thinks they have 36% chance to advance.
2026-07-14 19:59:48
I said to advance, not to be Champions
2026-07-14 20:01:22
France will make it 2nd half, market just knows it, rofl
2026-07-14 21:12:39
Quick, sell your Spain, I have lost on every team I backed rofl
2026-07-14 21:42:36
Now that France are out, you can't help be think it seemed obvious they weren't all that good. We got bamboozled
2026-07-15 13:27:15
There was only one team capable of beating France... Spain. But have you seen Belgium play against Spain?
2026-07-15 17:45:23
All yours buddy
2026-07-15 20:16:29
Pessi?
2026-07-15 20:45:04
Compren Argentina!
2026-07-16 00:03:41
Hillary Clinton: Am I a joke to you?
2026-07-17 19:59:27
I only have one comment to say:
- ARGH! entina
2026-07-17 20:02:16
EA always gets it right, they predict the goddamn champion before the tournament even starts... this year they predicted Spain and there they are, at the Final. Will you bet against that?
2026-07-17 20:05:08
Undeniably, they had the easiest path in the World Cup possible; Have they been truly tested?
Many thought France was a lock; But Spain proved they had, in fact, not been tested.
2026-07-18 22:32:28
gg
2026-07-18 22:33:06
kek
2026-07-19 22:26:41
LEO PESSI? DONDE ESTA LEO PESSI????
2026-07-20 01:42:12
LEO PESSI? ARE YOU THERE LEO PESSI??
2026-07-20 01:42:38
DONDE ESTA LEO PESSI
2026-07-28 19:10:55
You have been Cucked by Cloudflare
2026-07-30 02:48:12
Go back to school & learn to read
2026-08-01 00:08:39
Because the day is not over. Any option goes yes if a 2-week pause begins at any point from the last minute of that day (11:59 PM ET). So even if there are confirmed bombings today, it's not an automatic NO; You would need an attack on Iran by the US from the first minute of tomorrow onwards.
2026-08-01 02:55:48
You need a strike from tomorrow on to resolve NO for July 31
2026-08-04 18:48:06
Market on Flávio's Vice President pick
https://polymarket.com/event/flavio-bolsonaro-vp-candidate-20260803145529
2026-08-04 18:51:14
He polls 3-5%
2026-08-05 14:23:44
af
2026-08-05 19:09:38
EMBANANOU DE VEZ EM MG
Quem leva!?
https://polymarket.com/event/minas-gerais-governor-election-winner
2026-08-05 19:40:09
https://polymarket.com/event/minas-gerais-governor-election-winner
2026-08-06 03:00:16
A eleição de Minas tem mais emoção
https://polymarket.com/event/minas-gerais-governor-election-winner
2026-08-06 17:47:24
Tava legal a disputa, agora Cleitinho ganha disparado
2026-08-07 01:03:15
Se eles lançam o Cleitinho ganham fácil, se lançam o Falcão perdem fácil, tem que ser burro pra lançar o Falcão
2026-08-07 23:20:10
Faz o C
2026-08-07 23:55:00
Já ganhou
2026-08-12 17:58:21
Not guaranteed, they can lose the run due to a DC or glitch
2026-08-12 18:25:30
I think nothing short of DC will botch this run
2026-08-13 20:03:13
Cuckflare
2026-08-15 23:40:09
肯定会是在中国会面，毫无疑问。
2026-08-16 21:30:21
You are not richer it's just Marçal glitching your PNL
2026-08-17 22:27:34
Mercados abertos para o vencedor em cada estado
https://polymarket.com/event/brazil-presidential-election-first-round-1st-place-in-goias
2026-08-18 17:32:17
Quem comparecerá a um debate antes do Primeiro Turno?
https://polymarket.com/event/lula-participates-in-debate-before-first-round/lula-participates-in-debate-before-first-round
https://polymarket.com/event/flavio-bolsonaro-participates-in-debate-before-first-round/flavio-bolsonaro-participates-in-debate-before-first-round
2026-08-18 18:52:14
Procura-se LPs para os markets de Debate
Lula comparece a um debate? Sim ou Não
https://polymarket.com/event/lula-participates-in-debate-before-first-round/lula-participates-in-debate-before-first-round
Flávio comparece a um debate? Sim ou Não
https://polymarket.com/event/flavio-bolsonaro-participates-in-debate-before-first-round/flavio-bolsonaro-participates-in-debate-before-first-round
2026-08-22 19:52:12
Lula participará de um debate?
https://polymarket.com/event/lula-participates-in-debate-before-first-round/lula-participates-in-debate-before-first-round
2026-08-23 17:39:50
Sobe o preço dele
2026-08-28 22:50:08
with my luck, Y will lose for SURE
2026-08-28 23:22:08
I thought this would update today, but it seems I was wrong lol.