wiki.Polymarket

Address	Roles	Chains	Currencies	Total	Requests
0x614dc8d3542c12103d2c6a3553fd761e391d1546 seed mr.ozi	recipient, seed, sender, user	Polygon	USDC.e	$346,991.63	47
0x915bdbe3d6c8d66a8ca8ddf1456d53a26892276d seed mr.ozi	recipient, seed	Ethereum	ETH	$18.46	1
0x8e5fcd1d17fa7ff9cd70a435a762a1e98c899a5c 📤	recipient	Base	USDC	$145,952.74	20
0x804fc2f57f5b3f2fb186d0369e5d248a5ee8be49 📤	recipient	Ethereum, Base	USDC	$74,947.99	11
0x3e18c95aae7b9b5514e37179fdf9272f9efb4a72 📤	recipient	Polygon	USDC	$49,994.20	1
0xce81cce772d3a114336d5899206a66f077c83dbc 📤 TealV	recipient	Polygon	USDC	$39,992.57	6
0x079e23f71b2fbc185b2a533c7e270fcdc82bca85 📤	recipient	Polygon	USDC	$19,998.14	1
0x3e6740475fdab6fdd183ac63324bb34ab2232925 📤	recipient	Polygon	USDC	$14,996.42	1
0x88a8386b6c4e2ab0bc359b36a555a6be9cb253c5 📤 Hhhhhhhh-426	recipient	Polygon	USDC	$751.74	3
0xa311f555e53d605d78ec55120f6cbc0d42ec2684 📤	recipient	Polygon	USDC	$99.99	1
0xe4908f8c8eb8e7c2c993ccaf9a2bed7c19b9804b 📤	recipient	Ethereum	USDC	$99.71	1
0x1ea9a8d02096c3c6d48139d91147c5dd519e5664 📥	sender, user	Ethereum	USDC	$96.51	1

Market	Outcome	Size	PnL
US x Iran permanent peace deal by June 15, 2026?	Yes	252724.905078	$74,231.96
Iran x Israel/US conflict ends by April 7?	Yes	165139.174755	$64,717.54
US-Iran nuclear deal by June 30?	Yes	197482.79714	$63,048.60

Market	Outcome	Size	PnL
US forces enter Iran by December 31?	No	194509.250208	$-46,226.55
Will Ronaldo Cry at the World Cup?	No	65072.467631	$-39,345.78
Iran closes its airspace by May 24?	Yes	36797.248564	$-32,051.12

Market	Outcome	Size	Avg	Now	Value	PnL
Will United Russia (ER) gain the most seats in the next Russian parliamentary election?	Yes	99784.3371	$0.62	$0.71	$71,345.80	$9,900.50
Will Nicolás Maduro be the leader of Venezuela end of 2026?	Yes	57092.8355	$0.53	$0.84	$47,701.06	$17,165.95
Iran leadership change by December 31?	No	40000.0439	$0.60	$0.83	$33,200.04	$9,057.73
Israel x Iran ceasefire continues through August 31?	Yes	29567.6797	$0.66	$0.98	$29,109.38	$9,495.45
Israel x Iran ceasefire continues through December 31?	Yes	27009.83	$0.65	$0.69	$18,501.73	$1,034.58

Market	Outcome	Size	PnL
US x Iran permanent peace deal by June 15, 2026?	Yes	252724.905078	$74,231.96
Iran x Israel/US conflict ends by April 7?	Yes	165139.174755	$64,717.54
US-Iran nuclear deal by June 30?	Yes	197482.79714	$63,048.60
Khamenei out as Supreme Leader of Iran by February 28?	Yes	338954.032809	$56,430.87
France, UK, or Germany military action against Iran by March 31?	No	115813.33659	$30,622.07

When	Type	Side	Market	Outcome	Price	Size	USDC
4 hours ago	TRADE	SELL	Friedrich Merz out as Chancellor of Germany before 2027?	No	$0.88	5.159089	$4.54
7 hours ago	TRADE	SELL	Friedrich Merz out as Chancellor of Germany before 2027?	No	$0.88	600	$528.00
8 hours ago	MAKER_REBATE				$0.00	3.991	$3.99
9 hours ago	REWARD				$0.00	1.4631	$1.46
17 hours ago	TRADE	SELL	Friedrich Merz out as Chancellor of Germany before 2027?	No	$0.88	1.136362	$1.00

When	Side	Market	Outcome	Price	Size
4 hours ago	SELL	Friedrich Merz out as Chancellor of Germany before 2027?	No	$0.88	5.159089
7 hours ago	SELL	Friedrich Merz out as Chancellor of Germany before 2027?	No	$0.88	600
17 hours ago	SELL	Friedrich Merz out as Chancellor of Germany before 2027?	No	$0.88	1.136362
18 hours ago	SELL	Friedrich Merz out as Chancellor of Germany before 2027?	No	$0.88	10.23
18 hours ago	SELL	Friedrich Merz out as Chancellor of Germany before 2027?	No	$0.88	10.4

2024-07-31 13:46:33 After the bombing of the Iranian Embassy in April, it took Iran 12 days to respond with rockets. I doubt they will respond within 3 days this time. They need to figure out what to do and how, if anything really.

2024-08-01 12:21:42 https://www.cbsnews.com/news/biden-to-give-address-first-night-democratic-national-convention/

2024-08-02 08:25:56 In politics, there's a concept of endorsing, which is different from a dictionary definition of what an endorsement means, and which is different from strongly supporting someone. Endorsing means that you said that you endorse someone, and therefore they can use it as part of their campaign. It acts as a signal to the endorser's voters, that their votee wants them to vote on the endrosee.

2024-08-02 08:37:45 While Bernie said that he "fully supports" Kamala, which indicates strong approval and backing, the absence of a formal endorsement declaration means he has not made the kind of official, unequivocal commitment that the word "endorse" conveys. This distinction matters in political strategy, public perception, and media reporting. At this point, this market shouldn't resolve to a 'Yes'. And if it was clear for someone that he endorsed her, they would've issued a bond and proposed a resolution. So clearly, it is not clear enough to anyone.

2024-08-02 09:11:10 In fact, I believe the rules on Polymarket should be in general made bullet-proof clear. It creates unnecssary ambiguity. It would be easier if the rule stated that he needs to say the worse "endorse" or respond with a 'Yes' to a question whether he endorses her. There are many bets around where people argue what outcome is the correct one.

2024-08-02 09:17:31 Well, if it was that clear, this market would trade much different.

2024-08-02 23:04:10 In April, it took them 12 days to conduct an attack. US sources say that it will take them days to prepare a response. We are 5 hours before the deadline and we're still trading at 90%. Interesting. I hope I don't get negatively surprised in the morning. Somehow I became the person with second most 'no' shares.

2024-08-02 23:11:10 Also, last time they attacked just after midnight, local time. It's 2:30am in Iran right now. Sunrise in 2.5 hours. I don't see this happening. Maybe in the next days.

2024-08-04 09:03:39 Please keep buying the very underpriced Yes shares 👍🙂

2024-08-04 16:01:42 they attack at night, so if Monday, then late on Monday

2024-08-04 21:34:55 You're funny :)

2024-08-07 08:38:42 @limitfinancial Yeah, that's conditional on Harris taking a lead. If she indeed does, then I'll reconsider the odds here. For now, feels underpriced.

2024-08-07 08:46:32 And what? 🙂 He'll be saying the same about her and the Fox debate.

2024-08-11 15:15:05 This is just too crazy.

2024-08-13 09:18:31 She's a black woman that everyone likes.

2024-08-13 22:01:41 🤣🖤

2024-08-14 18:36:55 Opposition had official voting results from the stations, so it's not that clear, unfortunately.

2024-08-14 22:20:26 Yeah, I've been following the war for years now, and i believe you fortunately will. It's highly unlikely that they lose all of it.

2024-08-15 13:35:58 The convention happens across two venues, the primary one (United Center) and a secondary one (McCornick). The rules define that it needs to be a speech, not whether it needs to happen at the primary venue.

2024-08-15 21:08:02 What post are you referring to?

2024-08-16 13:53:32 I don't see any additional context posted?

2024-08-16 14:08:31 Ah, it's only posted under Jill...

2024-08-18 21:51:04 Keep dreaming guys 😉

2024-08-20 11:20:48 I was thinking about it and I agree that R presidency and D popular vote feels very cheap at 25c. If we believe the elections is going to be close to a flip (50/50), then given the electoral vs demograpgics distribution of votes, it is very likely that the Democrats will win the popular vote. So for Republicans to win the popular vote, they would need to win the electoral vote decisevely, which is not the outlook right now. So the R pres & D popular feels underpriced, as it assumes 50/50 chances of winning popular vote by Trump if he wins the elections.

2024-08-20 15:30:08 https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-says-kamala-harris-not-participate-fox-news-debate-sept-4

2024-08-20 15:31:20 It ain't happening, now or by the deadline on Oct 15. They will likely make a second debate on CNN/CNBC/etc.

2024-08-20 21:27:36 A curious situation. One guy, who generally makes loses, believes in Beyonce and Swift performing at DNC, owns 71% of all the Yes shares in this market and drives the No share price down. It seems like a great opportunity to buy cheap No shares to me, which is what I am doing, but I am also confused why others are not picking up the cheap shares with me ;)

2024-08-21 07:47:07 Free money :) There's just no way they'd want to give ammo to the Republicans this way. Drag queen on the DNC main stage before Bill Clinton or Kamala Harris is something else than Texas convention or things around it.

2024-08-21 07:50:45 Sure, there's a chance for that, but perhaps 5% or so. The DNC loves publicity and speculation because it draws attention to the convention, and draws young potential voters interest, because super stars may appear.

2024-08-21 09:56:56 Yes, they were. The protest at the Israeli consulate on Tuesday was organized by Behind the Enemy Lines organization under the title "Make it great like ’68," which is a reference to DNC in 68 in Chicago. On their official website, they say: "A call to students and youth: Come to Chicago this summer and shut down the DNC!" which is the main title of their protest invitation. They clearly demonstrated at the Israeli consulate with the intention of shutting down the DNC and influencing the politicians at the DNC. Source: https://behind-enemy-lines.org/make-2024-as-great-as-1968/

2024-08-21 09:57:40 "Other demonstrators are even more confrontational: A group called Behind Enemy Lines calls the Democratic gathering a “genocide convention” and is promoting a protest on Tuesday under the headline of “Make it great like ’68.” https://www.rawstory.com/protests-at-democratic-national-convention/

2024-08-21 09:58:52 "A man in Chicago Bulls hat, his face covered by a balaclava, called on protesters to “shut down the DNC.” The group, which is not affiliated with the coalition of over 200 groups that organized Monday’s protests, advertised the demonstration Tuesday under the slogan of “Make it great like ’68,” invoking the anti-Vietnam War protests that seized the city during the 1968 Democratic National Convention." https://apnews.com/article/democratic-convention-chicago-protests-war-gaza-f064683535bbbe93231d31ecc2dbafc7

2024-08-21 10:03:23 And that's where 70+ people got arrested. So, clearly meeting criteria of the market.

2024-08-21 10:21:46 "A group of pro-Palestinian, anti-Democratic National Convention protesters confronted Chicago police Tuesday during what began as a rally outside the Israeli Consulate downtown." https://abc7chicago.com/post/chicago-protests-today-pro-palestinian-anti-dnc-rally-planned-outside-israeli-consulate-will-affect-metra-riders/15209951

2024-08-21 15:25:39 The organizer of the protest where 70+ got arrested said in the protest invitation that the protest is against the DNC. The person speaking to the crowd during the protest called on the crowd for them to "shut down the DNC." They are clearly making the protest now because of the DNC and to influence the DNC on the topic of the war in Gaza. The proximity to the actual DNC doesn't matter as long as it's in Chicago. In 1968, the main anti-DNC prostests took place in Lincoln and Grant Parks, 6 and 4 miles away from the International Amphitheater where the DNC was held. The Tuesday protestors chose the Israeli consulate because they're protesting against Israeli actions, and Biden's support for them, trying to influence the DNC. Protests can have multiple aims at the same time, there's nothing unusual in that. The important part was that the Tuesday protest was also against DNC and was happening because of the DNC. We are yet to see if the arrests were in fact arrests and not detentions, but at least the lawyers representing the people claim so. To claim that the arrests are not in connection of protesting the DNC is a manipulation, and we can meet at UMA voting if someone believes otherwise. I'm happy to cash in $750 for your bond.

2024-08-21 15:35:10 https://behind-enemy-lines.org/make-2024-as-great-as-1968/ just read this Car. This is the organization that held the Tuesday protest at the consulate.

2024-08-21 16:16:22 They protest against Israel's war in Gaza. And they protest the DNC too. "Behind Enemy Lines Anti-Imperialist Resistance is currently waging a campaign to demand the City of Chicago cancel the Democratic National Convention (DNC)." "Week 2 will be focused on protesting the DNC" - Week 2 is now, btw. "Shut down the DNC!"

2024-08-21 16:21:02 Say what? :D

2024-08-21 17:29:46 What more evidence do you folks need? Here's footage of the protestors before getting arrested shouting "Shut down DNC!" and carrying signs against the DNC: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18AdeRTKtLI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oQAfDS7s20

2024-08-21 20:23:33 All the DNC major protests in 1968 happened between 3.5 and 7 miles away from the DNC venue back then (Lincoln Park, Grant Park, Old Town, Conrad Hilton Hotel). The Israeli consulate is 2.5 miles away. So unless you want to claim that all the major 1968 DNC protests were not DNC protests, your argument makes no sense.

2024-08-21 22:23:54 New York Times discusses how the protestors from the Israeli consulate wanted to walk towards the DNC but were not allowed: "A leader of a group that organized the protest, Behind Enemy Lines, criticized the law enforcement response and said demonstrators should have been allowed to march nearly two miles from the consulate to the arena hosting the convention. The scuffling began after demonstrators linked arms and pressed forward into a line of police officers. The police began arresting people and issued an order that people leave the area. “The intention was to march to the D.N.C.,” Michael Boyte, a co-founder of the group, said late on Tuesday night. “Instead of our people being allowed to march to the convention,” he said, the city had sent in police officers." https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/21/us/chicago-dnc-protest-arrests.html

2024-08-21 22:27:48 I don't think it's about whales. With the Venezuelan elections, they actually had arguments given that the opposition had copies of official tally sheets. Here, it's different, because it's quite obvious that the arrested were protesting the DNC.

2024-08-21 22:29:51 We will see who laughs last 🖤🙂

2024-08-21 22:46:03 SlaylorGiftFromGod - obvious to me, obviously ;) But on a more serious note, I find the arguments brought by the No team to be extremely weak.

2024-08-22 08:08:39 No news of arrests on Day 3. It seems to have been peaceful. That leaves us at around 70 arrests so far. I personally think it's less likely than the current odds that we will get ~30 arrests on Day 4, so I've just switched my bet to a No, from my previous Yes. Adjusting to new information :) Bet Yes if you like the odds for ~30 arrests on Day 4 are favorable. Good luck!

2024-08-22 08:56:26 Well, good luck! 🤞

2024-08-22 14:47:46 People are waking up to finally bet ;)

2024-08-22 22:06:00 Why not signing?

2024-08-23 10:44:59 Yes

2024-08-23 12:50:22 "About an hour ago @NicoleShanahan talks with Adam Carolla and said that nothing has been confirmed yet with Trump. Stating that Operation #WarpSpeed (Spearheaded by Trump) is a key point holding back potentially joining forces." [link removed]

2024-08-23 13:44:06 Sure, could be. Either way, the question is of the pricing here :)

2024-08-23 13:47:58 Also, even if RFK endorses Trump at the Trump's rally, that does not qualify as a Yes for this market. Instead, RFK might resign from the race at his own meeting, and only endorse Trump as a surprise guest a few hours later at the Trump rally. That's a real possibility that would resolve this market to a No, which I don't think is priced in yet either. And of course, RFK might endorse Trump in a few days, after some more negotiations.

2024-08-23 13:52:51 "Meanwhile, there are still potential hurdles for the Kennedy and Trump campaigns as they weigh a potential deal. One source close to Kennedy, who has been briefed on the deliberations, said the third-party candidate’s stipulations could pose a problem for Trump’s team. “Bobby wants to bring people with him onto the Trump campaign, and this might be a deal-breaker,” the source said. Kennedy, 70, is also getting considerable pushback from the closest and most important member of his inner circle — his wife, actor Cheryl Hines — who “really does not want him” to back Trump, the source said." [link removed]

2024-08-23 16:15:41 In 2h

2024-08-23 16:47:12 Doesn't sound like an endorsement.

2024-08-23 18:05:33 They're saying that he will likely endorse Trump soon, not necessarily in this very conference.

2024-08-23 18:21:08 I just hope he doesn't speak about it at the conference at this point 😉

2024-08-23 18:24:51 Yeah, agreed 👍

2024-08-23 19:36:16 He stays on the ballots and asked to vote for him, while he also supports Trump. For me, that doesn't qualify as an endorsement. If you endorse someone, you want people to vote for him. Even Bernie market resolved against endorsement of Harris, although he had stated his support even stronger than RFK.

2024-08-23 19:55:53 To be honest, it feels like a weak endorsement. He didn't use the word "endorse" on purpose, to stay little ambiguous. So, it depends which definition of the word "endorse" we're going for. Historically, with Bernie resolution, RFK's speech would not qualify as an endorsement. With looser definitions though, it is an endorsement.

2024-08-23 20:15:46 He invited people to vote for him, he said he was staying on the ballots, and yes - he's suspending the campaign, but not dropping from the presidential race.

2024-08-23 20:26:09 Washington Post: "RFK suspends campaign." NYTimes: "RFK suspends campaign. Mr Kennedy announced he was pausing..." Things that get paused or suspended can be restarted, that's not dropping out. I'm sorry Yes holders but he wants to have skin in the game to exert influence. That's why he still called voters to vote on him. If you dropped out, you don't stay on the ballot asking people to vote for you.

2024-08-23 20:30:38 Sure, but it's just part of it. He chose to stay on ballots and actively asked people to vote for him. If you drop out of a race, you don't ask people to vote for you, or?

2024-08-23 21:05:53 "I want everyone to know that I am not terminating my campaign. I am simply suspending it and - NOT ENDING IT. My name will remain on the ballot in most states... I encourage you to vote for me! And if enough of you vote for me and neither of the major party candidates wins 270 votes, which is quite possible... I could conceivably still end up in the White House in a contingential election." RFK literally hopes to WIN the election through the contigent election and ENCOURAGES people to VOTE for him. How's that dropping out?

2024-08-23 21:06:48 [link removed] From 17:10

2024-08-23 21:08:05 And a word on the word "suspend." When you withdraw, you'll say you suspend the campaign (like Haley or Desantis) to keep the funds available. However, if you pause and want to remain somewhat active, like RFK now, you'll also say that you "suspend" the campagin. So the fact that in other cases "suspending" meant "withdrawing" that doesn't mean it's the case here. Every square is a rectangle, but not every rectangel is a square :)

2024-08-23 21:10:31 Being in the race =/ thinking you can win. NYT and Washing Post, which I read, both do not mention "dropping out" but only "pausing" etc. Read my comment above about the word "suspend." Anyway, good night :) I am happy that you do not have shares here, because it's likely a dead cause, unless it goes to UMA and something funky happens. In a few hours, this market will trade at 90-95% for a No, or worse.

2024-08-23 21:12:19 The context in which the word "suspend" is used is what matters. And how is one dropping, when one is so clear about wanting to win the election? :) That makes little sense.

2024-08-23 21:12:33 I don't think you read my comment? :)

2024-08-23 21:24:33 This feels very manipulated post factum. I hope this goes to UMA.

2024-08-27 20:25:24 He said today that he's coming to ABC on Sep 10. Nothing about Fox. Surprise? No. "“I have reached an agreement with the Radical Left Democrats for a Debate with Comrade Kamala Harris,” Trump said on his Truth Social platform, confirming the debate will be Sept. 10 in Philadelphia." https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/08/27/trump-harris-debate-sept-10/

2024-08-27 20:28:15 "Harris would not agree to the FoxNews Debate on September 4th, but that date will be held open in case she changes her mind or, Flip Flops, as she has done on every single one of her long held and cherished policy beliefs. A possible third Debate, which would go to NBC FAKE NEWS, has not been agreed to by the Radical Left. GOD BLESS AMERICA!" https://x.com/TrumpDailyPosts/status/1828502530323779858

2024-08-28 11:34:22 Spread of 1%. If you wanted to bet Yes on one bet, and No on the other, you'd actually pay 50c twice, so all good.

2024-08-28 14:32:52 Probably, but Detroit is also a big manufacturing city, and he did not use the word "manufacturing" when he spoke there three weeks ago.

2024-08-28 16:22:57 Because he normally does not say it :)

2024-08-28 16:24:23 Polymarket overturned its own governance and interpreted the reality in a way that seems against the rules of the given bet. No surprise that a lot of people got very angry.

2024-08-28 19:04:18 He said "Chinese" like 10x already ;)

2024-08-29 23:58:09 They have 1h slot reserved at CNN for this. Not sure what that means, but would be strange to have 30-40 min commentary for an 18-minute interview. https://edition.cnn.com/tv/schedule/cnn

2024-08-30 00:06:41 Yeah, same here. It'd be super strange and open to mockery if the interview she finally gave was so, so short.

2024-08-30 00:34:55 I am at 9 too.

2024-08-30 00:55:31 Pretty good! Except Border ;)

2024-08-30 01:14:58 Close one with 9x Border. Damn :)

2024-08-30 21:26:05 I thought he said Comrade Kamala for the third time, but was one Comrade Harris, or did I mess something up?

2024-08-30 21:31:45 Thanks, makes sense :) Let's see if he says it for the third time then.

2024-08-30 21:51:05 Damn, I hoped he would not say it in the end. He talked so much around it.

2024-09-01 22:08:54 You cannot destroy the bridge by flying a drone into it though.

2024-09-02 07:50:51 It doesn't. My point is that they will not fly drones because there's no point, and flying drones is much easier and cheaper than trying to destroy the bridge with a naval operation, or a truck with explosives, etc.

2024-09-02 07:51:58 So the fact the they flew drones into Moscow doesn't increase the chance of a successful attack on the bridge, in my book.

2024-09-02 12:57:38 I am so happy you're here :)

2024-09-02 20:57:28 You're betting 1k on this and you don't know why the 4th? 😄

2024-09-02 21:01:31 Never in history was there a presidential debate on Fox. If she does poorly, Trump will agree to a debate in the "fake news" media to hit her again. If she does well, there will be too much too risk for her to go to Fox News. It ain't happening 😘😉

2024-09-03 04:46:13 2020 debate you mention was organized by CPD and transmitted by multiple media outlets, including Fox News. That's very different from a debate hosted by Fox News 🙂

2024-09-03 04:48:07 Ok 👌

2024-09-03 12:26:35 Might, might not :) I think this might be less systematic than you anticipate, with Trump's agenda on the day perhaps driving much of the variation, so I am surprised how much of your bankroll you put on this one.

2024-09-03 12:34:47 Yeah, I hear you, and the bridge has better air-defense than Moscow by far. The only way that Ukraine hit the bridge so far was through 1) truck-bomb, and 2) naval attack. The first one is pretty much impossible right now, and the second one much less likely. For example, they now put a bunch of bardges to block the way: https://english.nv.ua/nation/crimean-bridge-photos-russia-installed-30-barges-near-bridge-50436966.html

2024-09-03 12:53:59 He uses the timer to know how long the interview has been so far. That doesn't tell us anything about the relationship between the presence of the timer at the interview with Trump and how long the interview was. We don't even know if his particular timer counts up or down. Your point on other interviews being very long is a good one, though I am not sure how much the past informs the variance of this particular case.

2024-09-03 15:49:49 Did Kinkfisher watch the interview? Why are they buying AI and Illegal immigrants at 0.89?

2024-09-03 15:56:34 Did it leak, or what's happening?

2024-09-03 15:58:44 It looks it must've leaked.

2024-09-03 16:02:27 This is extremely likely to be rigged. I am out of this with some profit. See you guys. I'll watch how Kingfisher's positions behave after we see the interview.

2024-09-03 16:04:48 https://polymarket.com/profile/0xf8ba34bf0e95d952d05b578bfbc0833f9242a286?tab=positions Popatrz tu :)

2024-09-04 18:00:39 It would be funny if Trump says something live and then it gets cut out from the edited version put on the Fox News. That would be a shit show, because whoever wrote the rules was not aware that the Town Hall is pre-recorded and edited (as exemplified by the rules giving the wrong time of the rally and not making the distinction between the recording and what is being said). Let's hope we don't get into bad disputes on this one...

2024-09-04 18:02:51 Anyway, remember to cancel all your bets after 5:30pm, EDT. Otherwise, you might be buying a lost bet, thinking that the thing hasn't started.

2024-09-04 19:12:36 Right, I don't remember if I saw it somewhere, or if I ended up adding that part. Actually, I do not know if that is likely at all. For instance, they could cut it b/c they have 60 min sot in TV and the event took longer, or perhaps they will just keep the Town Hall at max 60 min to fit with the TV schedule. I have no experience/knowledge of that.

2024-09-04 19:16:06 All right, I am ready! I hope he doesn't say 'illegal immigration' or 'Israel', but I hope he says 'McDonald's' - he likes to talk about it the last few days. If neither is true, I'll get a short end of the stick here ;) May the gods throw the dice in a favorable way!

2024-09-04 22:01:05 Thanks and good luck to you all too :)!

2024-09-04 22:02:56 Stop trolling. They cannot do it on YT, because no one would watch Fox News. But you can watch live stream on the Russian sites: https://rutube.ru/video/c6cc4d620b1d4338901770a44b3e82f4/

2024-09-04 22:03:42 Then start buying ;)

2024-09-04 22:07:28 You could make some money by being there actually :)

2024-09-04 22:33:15 https://x.com/MarkNaughton9/status/1831454297638498698

2024-09-04 22:45:33 I still cannot get over the fact that the video was hanging on Lex's homepage for some hours beforehand... Kudos to Kingfisher for checking.

2024-09-04 22:49:38 With the public. There are thousands people there.

2024-09-04 23:19:11 Confirmed by?

2024-09-04 23:24:37 This is the weirdest market in a while 😂

2024-09-05 01:50:15 Nice! 🙂😎

2024-09-05 01:56:40 If they are airing the Q&A tomorrow, we have to wait with all the 'No's until then I guess.

2024-09-05 02:06:57 I said in advance that we had a risk of disputes because of the poor rules. Anyway, in my book, we're betting on what he is saying at the town hall event, not in the thing they happen to transmit in the TV.

2024-09-05 02:21:53 Miła propozycja, ale nie, dziękuję 😊

2024-09-05 08:38:56 Yes, but there is no footage of the Q&A yet. It comes later today.

2024-09-05 08:41:51 Find the guy obviously and ask him if he was an insider. (On a more serious note: JustKam once asked Aenews if he was behind the fake Twitter account that was run for weeks to manipulate a given market, and Anews admitted straight up ;)

2024-09-05 13:41:01 I'm pretty ready with my bets! I hope my lucky streak will continue 🤞 Good luck 🍀

2024-09-05 14:20:51 McDonald's, here we go again 😂

2024-09-06 17:54:11 I'm waiting for a tweet with a story about it 😉 Thanks in advance!

2024-09-06 17:56:12 Should, no new information came up, so we should slowly go back to where we were.

2024-09-09 16:02:41 And who decides what qualifies as a slur? I will skip this one - smells like trouble.

2024-09-09 20:09:24 Yeah, I've just gotten some thanks to donations from conspiracy theorists 😺

2024-09-10 06:44:14 No games this time.

2024-09-10 18:25:44 Really? ;)

2024-09-10 19:15:16 8 workdays in August (and 6 in July): Fri Aug 30, Thu Aug 29, Wed Aug 28, Tue Aug 27, Mon Aug 26, Mon Aug 12, Fri Aug 9, Thu Aug 8.

2024-09-11 09:05:16 20h

2024-09-11 11:20:05 Yeah, the market is trailing, b/c Trump holders are trying to capitalize on their trades without waiting, it seems.

2024-09-11 11:35:56 There's a cap of 800k shares against Kamala at 0.497, while Trump has 90k cap at 0.495. At this arbitrary point, Kamala's pathway to being in the lead seems more bumpy. Let's see how it develops :)

2024-09-11 12:22:18 Because people in this market seem to believe that the main market is not efficient, and that the more news comes out today about the debate, the more Kamala will move up. So, I cashed in a little gain, and I keep watching when to enter again :)

2024-09-11 13:10:27 This might be a very tight race. If Kamala's cap of now 660k shares (2h ago 800k) keeps melting, the path for her being in the lead would open more. Fun!

2024-09-11 15:08:08 Kamala's order book looks worse and worse, rather than better and better. I bought some Trump again :)

2024-09-11 15:11:25 At least, I did not buy 80k Trump shares just before the debate ;)

2024-09-11 15:27:01 What don't you understand?

2024-09-11 15:54:27 50-Pence is offloading some of his Kamala shares. It doesn't look too good for Kamala here.

2024-09-11 17:08:13 1.4M shares lying ahead of Kamala taking a lead at 49.3c :) This is going to be a fun evening!

2024-09-11 17:14:57 I too hope that you can double ;)

2024-09-11 22:27:27 Rigging incoming :)

2024-09-11 22:40:02 xD

2024-09-12 04:13:11 Who else is in Team Abdul? 👳😆

2024-09-12 07:02:32 There is a difference between mentioning a "lie" and calling someone a "liar." Just saying 😘

2024-09-12 07:04:07 It is indeed a big punchline. And thank you for your donation 😉

2024-09-12 07:11:15 Take a guess 😉

2024-09-12 07:12:49 Good luck! 🙂 (And, you'll need it. To be frank, your bets don't look too good to me, unfortunately 🤔).

2024-09-12 07:13:37 60-100 minutes

2024-09-12 11:44:52 It's a federal holiday, so no, it's not a workday.

2024-09-12 19:23:17 The very unexpected has happened. I've just realized some gain on my 'No' on Crypto, added a bit more cash, and flipped to a "Yes'. I did not see that coming. But if it is to happen, it could be tonight :)

2024-09-12 20:32:01 Why would she ever agree to that?

2024-09-12 20:39:11 Someone spilled some blood, but the tampon sucked most of it, so all good.

2024-09-12 20:49:13 I personally think she has a lot to gain from calling him a coward for not wanting to do a debate at all, and if he says 'only Fox', laughing at him that he only feels safe with his cronies. And she has a lot to lose by going to Fox, and having the entire setup against her, including unfavorable questions, etc. I don't see it, really. Anyway, we will know within a month :)

2024-09-12 21:49:25 I think more like 30 ;)

2024-09-13 12:10:15 [link removed]

2024-09-13 14:57:00 So, the guy says he's blacking out the signature for the protection of the whistleblower, meaning that the document, if realeased at all, will contain no visible signature. Either this is an obvious 'No' or we're going into a dispute.

2024-09-13 14:57:32 Anyways, the rules are too unclear for me to engage.

2024-09-13 17:19:46 Did he say it at the debate? I looked and couldn't find it. Could you help me? :)

2024-09-13 19:16:28 Border x5 is a funny one. She said "Border" 6x at the DNC and 3x at the debate three days ago. So, there's some chance, even if it's not her favorite topic.

2024-09-13 20:06:54 Yeah, the "locks" are the opposite of what you're betting ;)

2024-09-13 20:07:07 She doesn't seem to be attacking him that way much.

2024-09-13 20:11:26 You sure? How did you calculate them? :)

2024-09-13 20:13:59 I'll agree on one - the reproductive freedom. It might be worth 0.05-0.10. You still bought for 0.15 though ;)

2024-09-13 20:16:30 What is he going to say if they ask him? "No, I would never go there."? ;)

2024-09-13 22:40:39 Surprised?

2024-09-13 22:49:46 Got a full house, gg :) (with the exception of the $10 I threw out on 500 Abortion Ban at 0.02 just in case hehe.)

2024-09-13 22:56:29 Yeah, I've added some shares too :)

2024-09-14 05:37:46 Wow, i hit everything 😎🤩

2024-09-14 05:57:02 Take a look at my comment from yesterday below. For me, the word "signed" in the original rules already pointed to what the additional context now says. I do think that the original rules were not very clear, that's why i didn't buy in, even if the market felt like an obvious 'No' in my interpretation of the rules. I'm with Polymarket on this one, having a non-biased opinion of not holding any shares. Though, i might buy something now.

2024-09-14 06:00:22 It said signed, so i thought from the start that it was required. I bought in only now though, because of the earlier ambiguity.

2024-09-14 10:04:12 Exactly the same with me.

2024-09-14 10:13:04 Crimean bridge is much more defended.

2024-09-14 16:56:52 So if you were a whistleblower at ABC, you'd definitely want this Twitter guy to be your platform. Why to go to the New York Times, right? 😂😂

2024-09-15 09:29:48 Sounds more like what aenews would do 😉

2024-09-15 18:49:21 Easy money. There's no way that any credible person shows that the affidavit actually comes from someone at the ABC.

2024-09-15 19:03:34 With all the love to you guys buying 'Yes', please don't waste your money. Please read the additional context.

2024-09-15 19:09:16 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/trump-plans-visit-springfield-ohio-haitian-migrants-conspiracy-theory-rcna171190

2024-09-15 23:32:53 Agreed.

2024-09-15 23:35:49 Nothing ever happens.

2024-09-15 23:40:36 The main market: It's a toss-up! This market: Nahh, kids are just having a little fun.

2024-09-16 04:40:49 I can 🙂 Yes, the clarification doesn't give a deadline. So, there's a "legal" window for you. The thing is, it's very unlikely that this window is going to be used by UMA. If the affidavit looked any legit, sure, we might wait to see the connection to the ABC showed. But, that's not the case. It looks completely forged, so in all likelihood, the interpretation will not focus on the "window" you mention.

2024-09-16 16:07:38 I mean, there was a word "signed" from the beginning. If you scroll down, even before the additional context, i wrote that this is either a clear 'No', or we will have a dispute

2024-09-16 16:14:44 GG. And, i think it's the time for a screenshot with a quote from the Mountain Man: [link removed]

2024-09-16 16:28:32 As of yesterday, 60% chance of winning for Trump, and 40% for Harris, awaiting more newer polls.

2024-09-16 16:34:53 Please stop trolling the poor folks 🙂 They already threw their money into the ocean, let them be.

2024-09-16 16:38:05 It's pretty much done. I offer risk-free 1% bonds for sale. Any takers? 🙂

2024-09-16 23:02:51 Not funny.

2024-09-16 23:47:47 Do not question THE ARBITER OF TRUTH.

2024-09-17 08:47:20 Good luck 🤞

2024-09-17 14:36:11 Well, and in which speech did she mention JD Vance?

2024-09-17 14:40:35 A Tarrot reading? ;)

2024-09-17 14:42:19 I am $6k deep in this market, so I will say stop for now, but if anyone is interested in unsolicited good advice, buy 'No' for JD Vance for anything below 0.9. Good luck :)

2024-09-17 16:36:13 With such massive advantage in the national polls, it's a matter of days until we flip 🙃 She's gained 3.5pp just from yesterday to today and is now at 43.5pp chance of winning.

2024-09-17 16:47:12 What live button?

2024-09-17 17:58:14 Thanks for posting. That's from before she even became a candidate. And it's not from a rally. Anyway, "with no common sense"? Let's check back with each other after the rally. In the meantime, good luck! 🙃

2024-09-17 17:59:32 Why would I want to get out? 🙃 I'm going to sit on it until the rally, unless it goes to 0.95 or higher. Good luck to you 🍀

2024-09-17 18:42:19 Let's rather see what Harris says ;)

2024-09-17 19:31:42 Nate Silver 30 minutes ago: "But the headline is that the bold prediction I made after last week’s debate looks to be coming true: Kamala Harris is moving up in the polls enough that the model is converging back toward 50/50 in the Electoral College."

2024-09-18 07:45:41 If you sell your Palestine shares, you'll increase your chances of not sucking at it this time 😉

2024-09-18 07:49:46 Frankly, you're facing uphill on this one. She never says Convicted Felon. She even deliberately didn't say it at the debate, when she had a chance. If you want to have better chances and really need to make a buck on this, I'd suggest you sell and swap 🙂

2024-09-18 12:39:19 Because of the attempt on his life that Secret Service saved him from.

2024-09-18 14:32:33 Hey :) Nice to meet you too. I noticed us betting similarly too, so I thought of you as a kind of ally :) As for Palestine here, the thing is that she purposefully has been avoiding the topic, with the exception of the DNC speech and the debate, when she had to address it.

2024-09-18 14:32:52 Now, during the last rally in Wilkes-Barre, people in the audience tried to force her to speak about Palestine by shouting stuff, and that's when she said 'ceasefire', which we now see here in this market. So, there's an odd chance that either the audience nudges her into saying 'Palestine' or that she changes her approach, but both are negligble in my judgement. Good luck and see you around :)

2024-09-18 14:36:15 What if she says: "And Trump's VP candidate keeps on lying, and is surrounded by felons who got convicted!" ;)

2024-09-18 14:44:41 Oh, and the same thing with the audience happened in Georgia in August, and she also referred to the 'ceasefire' but did not mention 'Palestine'. Funnily enough, in that sense, betting 'Yes' on 'ceasefire' is largely a bet on the chances of audience's interference, which is around 25% ;)

2024-09-18 16:26:53 Nice 🙂 I've sent you a message on Discord 🙂

2024-09-18 18:34:51 Tomorrow is the day :)

2024-09-18 21:54:13 Why is it easy? 🙂

2024-09-18 22:46:33 Your statement is incorrect - maybe that's why? 🙂

2024-09-19 08:56:59 Thank you too. I have better return on my money elsewhere, so happy to sell to you :)

2024-09-19 09:13:52 She hasn't used the word 'racist' in neither of her rallies, DNC speech, CNN interview, and the debate. Unlikely to happen here too.

2024-09-19 09:39:18 It seems that after 28x "border" by Trump yesterday, some folks went like, "Hey, Harris surely has to say it 3x at least!" Well, good luck on that one ;)

2024-09-19 13:13:00 Agreed 👍

2024-09-19 19:22:12 Well, there are 140 organizations "participating" apparently. I doubt she will be naming them. I don't know if she says 'Latina/s' but I personally would be surprised.

2024-09-19 19:23:43 I am such a pessimist apparently. Only betting 'No' on everything ;)

2024-09-19 20:04:47 Do you think Nate Silver or Eli are betting here? ;)

2024-09-19 21:22:15 It's 2h, but it's likely not an interview-style event.

2024-09-20 02:53:29 Full house! 🥳

2024-09-20 03:14:10 Thanks 😊 And well, Trump is a mixed bag. Even his staple words come and go (be didn't say Comrade Kamala even once in the last rally). So, betting on Trump requires more sophistication and the returns are more volatile, at least for me.

2024-09-20 03:24:38 DNC speech, CNN interview, and the debate.

2024-09-20 09:24:29 You'll need a ton of good luck, so here you go - good luck!

2024-09-20 09:44:32 She did, you're correct, just as she did in the CNN interview and the debate. The thing is it's very likely that 'others' will ask her about the border, but herself, she has never spoken about it at a rally. All she did was mention on two rallies that she was 'border state attorney', which amounted to 'border' x1. The chances of 'border' x3 at a rally are in my opinion very small.

2024-09-20 09:55:26 If you ask me, the prices in this market mostly seem pretty fair. The ceasefire a bit undervalued from my calculation which puts it at 0.75, but I stay away beceause of high expected volatility compared to the expected profit. I'd also put 'Border' x3 at 0.90 - the 10% being the chance of her changing her speech times the chance that she includes border in it.

2024-09-20 09:57:48 More on the border topic: She talked about the border yesterday with Oprah, just as she did in the CNN interview and at the debate. The thing is it's very likely that 'others' will ask her about the border, which happens all the time. But herself, she has never spoken about the topic at a rally, where she is not being asked questions. Every now and then she refers to herself as a former 'border state attorney', which in those cases amounted to 'border' x1, otherwise it's been x0. The chances of 'border' x3 at a rally are in my opinion small. Good luck if you bet otherwise :)

2024-09-20 09:58:48 Oh, and JD Vance also belongs in 0.88-0.92 range.

2024-09-20 15:10:21 Because the chances of her saying it are low 😉

2024-09-20 17:29:12 Listen to this person, they speak wise.

2024-09-20 17:36:30 Yesterday for Oprah, I was a pessimist and bet only 'No'. I hit every single one. Tonight, I’m a pessimist again. Let’s see how it turns out this time! I just hope Mr. Proseco's shot-in-the-dark vision doesn’t prove true this one odd time.

2024-09-20 17:47:42 Yes, she'll likely say Project 2025 ;)

2024-09-20 19:04:42 Yes, it is underpriced. Somewhere around 0.90-0.94 seems right to me.

2024-09-20 21:19:34 Are you sure about that? :D

2024-09-20 21:55:58 @randomchooser Yes, it worked very well last time, so I'm hoping for the same tonight 😜

2024-09-20 21:59:53 I'm glad i can provide some entertainment 😜

2024-09-20 22:01:29 Nope, she won't, because there will be no one to ask her a question about it. I'm sorry, friend.

2024-09-20 22:04:56 Much comradeship, such plan. But wow, no comrades. So lonely. Many disappoint, such betray.

2024-09-20 22:23:30 Because last night it wasn't a rally ☺️

2024-09-21 00:47:31 Thank you 😊

2024-09-21 00:48:03 And to you too! 🥳

2024-09-21 00:50:00 🥳🙏

2024-09-21 07:54:53 Thanks :)

2024-09-21 15:28:01 xD

2024-09-21 20:30:25 GG :)

2024-09-21 20:32:24 I sold early at 0.81 because I was too nervous about it and decided to cash in a good profit ;) Congrats to you for keeping!

2024-09-21 22:08:51 x3 would be better

2024-09-22 08:51:23 That's not correct, my friend.

2024-09-22 16:30:00 Yes, it isn't right.

2024-09-22 19:16:13 Not all rallies and events served as markets on this platform. Anyway, why don't you bet if you believe in your data and analysis? ;)

2024-09-22 19:35:41 As if whether it's actually "too late" mattered?

2024-09-22 19:46:50 Well, I am planning on making some by betting 'No' ;) I am already at 50% profit on my No on x15 - a bit more, and I sell. Otherwise, it's worth keeping for 0.05 a piece.

2024-09-23 11:53:19 It doesn't.

2024-09-23 11:53:47 Yeah, agreed.

2024-09-23 11:54:43 P&L or not, he's got a point ;)

2024-09-23 16:52:37 I'm pretty ready with my bets. Good luck to everyone :)

2024-09-24 01:28:45 GG :)

2024-09-24 01:31:11 He said transgender, which counts. Transition doesn't count.

2024-09-24 01:40:09 I stopped counting Million at 12x and that was 2/3 into the speech.

2024-09-24 01:42:18 Maybe I made a mistake, I haven't checked yet, but I tried not to count billions :)

2024-09-24 01:59:06 I checked now. After 17 minutes of the speech, we were already at 10x Million, and after 30 minutes, we were at 12x. Ended up at 14x. So, I was correct.

2024-09-24 02:04:26 What the hell happened here. I was counting Millions during the speech and I stopped counting at 12x. After that, I haven't paid any attention to the market. I've now verified the numbers, and the total ended up at 14x, and indeed there were 10x after just 17 minutes of the rally, and 12x after 30 minutes of the 83-minute rally. How on earth did everyone get so confused?

2024-09-24 02:05:36 And why wasn't I paying attention?

2024-09-24 02:12:04 I hear you. Yeah, better to count oneself ;) We both got our lessons, though yours is much tougher. It reminds me of me selling 3k shares of Beyonce's performing at the DNC for 0.03c, after media wrote that it was "confirmed" that she would perform. I learnt not to sell for pennies when there's still even a tiny chance.

2024-09-24 10:31:15 Good job!

2024-09-24 15:31:49 Trans is heavily underpriced. Here's free advice :) Good luck!

2024-09-24 15:44:27 Nothing. And? :)

2024-09-24 15:45:05 What matters is what are the chances of him saying it. And those are at least 80%.

2024-09-24 22:00:54 xD

2024-09-24 22:02:57 I think even 80% was a conservative estimate. The reason: He almost always says it.

2024-09-25 14:51:36 Unfortunately, very unlikely.

2024-09-26 18:36:11 If anyone wonders why 'No' is relatively cheap and 'Yes' relatively expensive, here's some context: https://discord.com/channels/710897173927297116/817444472009785366/1288919166262448249

2024-09-26 19:40:09 Her official channel clarified that Harris's tax on unrealized capital gains would apply only to people with "with at least $100 million in wealth." https://x.com/KamalaHQ/status/1827073628162130283 So, let's go through this. 1. Harris says that she supports Biden's tax package, which includes a "billionaire minimum tax," which is administration's idea to tax unrealized capital gains of people with $100M in wealth. 2. Trump sees that and says that Harris idea to tax unrealized capital gains will kill small business owners. 3. Harris's official Twitter channel debunks Trump's statement by saying that the tax on unrealized capital gains "applies only to individuals with at least $100 million in wealth." 4. Harris explicitly says that she supports a "billionaire minimum tax" in both her policy document and on Twitter. That makes her support even more explicit.

2024-09-26 20:05:03 Here's another one: https://x.com/KamalaHQ/status/1831512664507314308 For me, this is explicit enough. They are clarifying what they're supporting. It's Harris's official Twitter account.

2024-09-26 21:12:24 Only in combination with Harris tweeting that she supports the "billionaire minimum tax."

2024-09-26 22:36:46 https://x.com/AugustinBrian3/status/1838759155685019649 The co-chair of her campaign publicly says that it's part of campaign's proposals to have the tax on unrealized capital gains. This is pretty official to me, and the rules allow for statements from her representatives.

2024-09-26 22:43:44 Just add this with Harris's own tweets on supporting the billionaire minimum tax, which is the same thing, and the case for No really falls apart - I really believe that, independently of my shares. I had No shares yesterday, but I read more into the topic, and changed my mind.

2024-09-27 00:03:17 The reason the reps are being asked about it is because Harris said in numerous places that she supports the billionaire minimum tax, which is the unrealized capital gain tax.

2024-09-27 20:06:08 It doesn't.

2024-09-27 23:03:13 I have never bet straight No's on Trump. Let's see! Have fun everyone :)

2024-09-27 23:06:07 Yes, thank you. You shouldn't have.

2024-09-28 00:03:57 Border border border fun 😉

2024-09-28 00:04:25 7

2024-09-28 00:06:32 I did 😅

2024-09-28 19:30:58 Let's go!

2024-09-30 08:41:12 This is a dispute territory. Does intelligence operation classify as a combat operation? I guess not, until they are engaged and start shooting. Let's see when more news comes.

2024-09-30 08:42:17 Btw. this is all news from 26h ago, just shared more widely. [link removed]

2024-09-30 08:43:23 I am just saying it is open for interpreation whether it meets the criteria. Perhaps when more details and/or footage emerges, we will know more.

2024-09-30 08:45:12 For disclosure, I had 3k of 'No' until 26h ago when the news of those raids came out. I don't like being in dispute territory, so I backed out from this bet. It's funny that we have a second wave of reaction to the same news, just delayed by a day.

2024-09-30 09:39:31 I divested from No due to the risk, so this is a fairly impartial opinion: If there had been any combat encounters, we probably would have seen footage from local Lebanese residents or Hezbollah trying to garner support and mobilize. Therefore, what likely happened were small reconnaissance scouting missions, which, to the best of my judgment, wouldn't meet the criteria. Good luck to all.

2024-09-30 14:25:35 A perspective from the side: This market was created in case Israel military entered Lebanon in small-scale missions, rather than invading Lebanon (that's what the other market is about). Militarry boots on the ground entering Lebanon to achieve military objectives should qualify as a combat operation. I do not think the condition is for fires to be shot. You can have a combat operation in which you are not being engaged. Anyways, this is clearly disputable, and I do not know if Polymarket will post a clarification resolving this market, or if UMA will vote, and if so, which way.

2024-09-30 14:27:08 And I mean, they were not entering Israel without the guns, or were they? ;) If you have a commando coming with guns, I mean, give me a break.

2024-09-30 20:10:05 xD

2024-09-30 20:28:10 Agreed :)

2024-10-01 08:56:05 1) Makes no sense. 2) Could happen if esacalate a lot.

2024-10-01 08:58:43 @GNS I can't speak about the others, but yes, I expect that, unless things escalate significantly. They benefit from staff on the ground for diplomatic and intel purposes.

2024-10-01 11:40:10 It seems like nothing really happened yesterday after all.

2024-10-01 12:00:31 Just raids, which doesn't meet the criteria.

2024-10-01 18:03:15 This market would trade 5-15 for a Yes if it wasn't for Chad. I'm not taking more risks here, but i do think it's a great opportunity for potential money from Mr Chad.

2024-10-01 18:23:52 The last time Israel declared war on another state? In 1948. Good luck to the Yes holders.

2024-10-01 19:43:15 It's actually Chad who moves the market single-handedly.

2024-10-01 19:44:42 The outcome depends on UMA, so what it is actually worth, or what the market believes it's worth doesn't matter.

2024-10-01 19:57:58 No, because they need to declare a war against Iran, not an internal state of war. Very different things.

2024-10-02 00:53:48 It looks like you haven't.

2024-10-02 02:56:57 Doesn't matter.

2024-10-02 02:57:56 The rig crowded confused Trump with his running mate.

2024-10-02 06:49:01 The Institute for the Studies of War: The IDF began the initial phase of its ground operation in southern Lebanon. Hezbollah has not yet engaged IDF units in Lebanon as of the time of writing. **Hezbollah may not engage Israeli forces while Israeli forces are only staging “sporadic raids” that do not remain in Lebanon. [link removed]

2024-10-02 06:50:40 A source from the UN Interim Forces in Lebanon (UNIFIL) said the Israeli military has staged some “sporadic raids” across the Lebanon-Israel border but **its troops have not remained on Lebanese soil**. The assessment that Israel has not yet launched a full-scale invasion was supported by two other high-level Lebanese security sources. [link removed]

2024-10-02 10:15:20 Yes, unfortunately. That's why I'm not buying more of No.

2024-10-02 11:08:20 We have first evidence of an Israeli invasion actually beginning - **two days after the deadline**. Today, Israeli troops entered one village (sic) - Maroun Al Ras.

2024-10-02 11:09:30 In practice, it is.

2024-10-02 11:11:39 Only raids before, in and out, which doesn't meet the criteria. Today, however, they seem to have entered to (at least temporarily) control some Lebanese territory.

2024-10-02 11:34:04 It could be.

2024-10-02 17:14:52 Because that would mean that the voters felt that there was not enough evidence for Yes by the time of the resolution being proposed. Given that no more new information in favor of Yes came in that little time window between the resolution proposal and midnight of Sep 30, P4 means that in the next vote we will see a No. In other words, P4 is a formality that needs to be done before we get a No. To sum up, Yes is a Yes, and Too Early (P4) will be followed by a No.

2024-10-02 18:04:42 I'm just telling you what's going to happen in the UMA vote. If it's a Yes, it's a Yes, if it's Too Early, it will be No short after. You can keep your comentary about the events on the ground for another thread.

2024-10-02 19:07:57 No man, this market is a Yes. September market is a No. Don't create conspiracy theories just to suit yourself.

2024-10-02 19:09:28 He actually argued in favor of this market resolving to a Yes in the UMA dispute, although he holds 54k No shares. I doubt you would have a fraction of that integrity.

2024-10-02 19:14:16 OK, OK doglover69.

2024-10-02 20:03:18 Why would anyone buy No in this market? Because Israel doesn't want to establish control - is that the argument? They are already controlling areas near Maroun Al Ras el for example. Just curious 🤔🙂

2024-10-02 20:50:43 It looks like someone sold No, rather than anyone buying.

2024-10-02 23:05:57 Such different bets, my friend.

2024-10-03 03:07:39 I'm starting to get more trust in there being reason in this system. Good.

2024-10-03 03:25:05 With Nikki, was that after the vote?

2024-10-03 03:48:19 Yeah, the invasion started on Wednesday. Someone proposed too early.

2024-10-03 09:14:52 Hey friends. Given the P4 vote on the current proposal, it's extremely likely we are seeing this market resolving to P2 (No) in the next round. I don't mean to get into the argument about the substance of this market, I just feel some care towards your money, in case you're putting them in because you believe in the criteria being met for a Yes. This market will be resolved by UMA token holders, and they will vote No, given they voted P4 at first. The P4 means that they judged that there was not enough evidence for a Yes at the time, and we got no new game-changing evidence in the meantime. So, save yourself some money, the voters have spoken, and we're soon going into a No. That's why we're trading at 0.85+ for a No.

2024-10-03 09:16:50 And they had to vote P4 rather than No, because the resolution was proposed before the deadline. That's the crux of the logistics here.

2024-10-03 09:18:07 It no longer matters what should or shouldn't happen. We already know the 80% of the UMA votes. It's pretty much a done deal, independently of what actually happened on the ground.

2024-10-03 09:20:15 I hope they are just a very rich person, and they're fine. Because betting more than 10% of your bankroll into such a disputable market would be pretty nuts.

2024-10-03 09:33:32 [link removed]

2024-10-03 10:09:26 Voting No is logically wrong, because the resolution was proposed a few hours before the deadline, so in principle Israel could've invaded between the proposal before the deadline. The Too Early votes can essentially be seen as No votes for the next round.

2024-10-03 10:11:11 Yes, exactly, too early because it was proposed just before the official deadline, so in principle Israel could've still invaded before the deadline. So, for technical reasons, the token holders could only vote Too Early or Yes (or No, if they did not pay attention, which a few voters did).

2024-10-03 10:57:12 Because he will say it ;)

2024-10-03 11:03:34 Abdenriel: Normally, sure, but actually, there's plenty of liquidity in this market, and I almost have no stake (relatively). I literally feel bad for people not understanding the governance here, and making decisions based off that.

2024-10-03 11:05:53 DFK: Well, UMA has already voted yesterday and it's extremely unlikely that they would shift their vote, that's the point. And yes, I believe they care about voting "right," which I think they did. I am in the camp saying that the invasion started only on Wednesday, if at all, and before that we only had in and out raids, which do not meet the criteria of this market. Anyway, friend, good luck to you.

2024-10-03 11:14:21 The final review timeline indicates by when the voters can reveal the votes they posted before, and therefore by when we will get a final decision on the current dispute. Given that the vast majority of votes have already been revealed, we know that the decision is P4 (too early). The voting began Oct 2, 00.01 UTC and finished Oct 2, 23:59 UTC, so basically the votes were committed yesterday. After this process is complete, we will be able to propose a resolution again, which will happen as soon as possible, so in 13h. The point here is that between the last voting window and now, we received no new substantial information that could change how token holders would vote. The vast majority voted on Oct 2 that they believed the market criteria were not met to justify Yes, hence the Too Early vote - you cannot vote No before the deadline of the market. So, my understanding is that it's safe to assume we will be seeing No in the next roundd of voting.

2024-10-03 14:06:00 I think we're pretty much talking to a void. I'm slowly giving up on trying to help people who are most likely throwing their money away 💰

2024-10-03 14:10:41 I can't speak for Domer, but i was betting No because i thought the ground invasion would happen after September 30. I sold everything at a loss on September 29 because of the signals in the Israeli media that the invasion was beginning. Then i bought No again on October 1 when it became clear that these were only raids and that the actual invasion was still to happen.

2024-10-03 14:40:12 Yeah, that pretty much settles it :)

2024-10-03 14:48:05 How did I miss such a sale? Damn.

2024-10-03 21:05:04 Border x23, Million x14. I have no more cash, so I give you the numbers ;)

2024-10-03 22:32:01 Well, this is so factually incorrect that it's even funny that someone wrote that :D

2024-10-03 22:33:45 Read my comments down below - I explained in detail :) Cheers.

2024-10-03 22:36:08 I mean, in all likelihood the Too Early crowd will vote No. It is just extremely unlikely otherwise.

2024-10-03 22:37:00 I've explained in detail below, take a look at my comment some hours back.

2024-10-03 23:27:40 I like this one 😎🎈

2024-10-04 16:52:50 I mean he has a point though. If UMA votes appear to be inconsistent without new information, then how can one trust the Oracle?

2024-10-04 16:55:23 Chad keeps pumping into the abyss. I am not whether to cry or lough at this point.

2024-10-04 16:56:14 Hi friend :)

2024-10-04 20:57:04 I am thinking the same. I should've predicted that Chad would want to dump more money into this pot. I'll be smarter next time ;)

2024-10-04 22:17:04 Gambling addiction :)

2024-10-04 22:17:20 You mean UMA, father?

2024-10-04 23:41:37 GG :)

2024-10-05 00:12:05 Well, i actually think that this voting is better than some random dude in an office deciding on his interpretation.

2024-10-05 00:13:58 Don't say hop before you jump 😜

2024-10-05 12:16:11 Because in September we had only in-and-out raids, and proper troops invaded only on Oct 2. That's why. As per information from the IDF, the United Nations, the United States, Lebanon, and Hezbollah.

2024-10-05 12:17:24 The Institute for the Study of War is a good source for the Oct 2. Also, there's zero footage of invading troops from before Oct 2. You cannot really invade a country and have no one see it, or?

2024-10-05 12:19:39 Well, those time-stamped sources, including official announcement from the IDF, confirm "limited raids" on the night of Sep 30, that came in and left. First footage of invading troops entering Lebanon comes from Oct 2.

2024-10-05 12:33:29 Doglover: with pleasure! [link removed]

2024-10-05 12:33:40 Sep 30: It is unclear where or if the IDF has entered southern Lebanon in force at the time of writing.

2024-10-05 12:33:47 Oct 1: It is not immediately clear where the 98th Division began operations in southern Lebanon (...) UNIFIL source told Western media that the Israeli forces have staged “sporadic raids” into Lebanon but have not “remained on Lebanese soil.“ (...) Hezbollah may not engage Israeli forces while Israeli forces are only staging “sporadic raids” that do not remain in Lebanon.

2024-10-05 12:35:14 Oct 2: Geolocated imagery shows Israeli forces separately approaching Odaisseh and Maround al Ras (...) The Lebanese Armed Forces claimed that Israeli forces went around 1,300 feet into Lebanon around Odaisseh and Khirbet Yaroun and that the Israeli forces retrograded after a ”short period (...) Hezbollah engaged the IDF as it advanced, killing at least eight Israeli soldiers.

2024-10-05 12:35:29 Oct 3: Geolocated imagery indicates Israeli troop movements around the western axis of advance, specifically around Aitaroun and Yaroun.

2024-10-05 12:56:59 Well, the Wikipedia you quote writes: "On 1 October, Israeli troops crossed the border into Lebanon in a series of small scale raids intended to precede a broader ground invasion." Which satisfies the September Entry market but not September Invade market.

2024-10-05 13:11:20 Median P&L Top Yes holders: +$19k. Median P&L Top No holders: +$87k. Sincerely, your data analyst.

2024-10-05 13:11:51 I like you trolling this time :D

2024-10-05 13:16:16 Actually, the word "invade" is even more relevant than "intent" here, given that the No crowd argues that raids are not enough to constitute an invasion. Also the word "sources" is also more important here than "intent," with that the primary sources from the rules say no invasion before the deadline.

2024-10-05 13:16:46 You are our median, car.

2024-10-05 13:20:30 And one thing for sure, the median will change a lot once this market is resolved :D

2024-10-05 14:34:51 xD

2024-10-06 22:52:58 It looks like the IDF have just captured first villages in Lebanon: Odaisseh, Yaroun, and Maroun Al Ras - pending confirmation. Now, we finally can talk of an invasion and intent to control territory without any doubt.

2024-10-06 22:54:58 No shit, sherlock ;)

2024-10-06 23:04:32 It does, but there was no military offensive until Wednesday, so it doesn't matter if the intent was there. Anyway, I prefer to measure the intent by the action, even if it preceds it.

2024-10-07 00:02:34 Shayku, very smooth. Pumping Yes, switching to No at the beginning of the reveal phase.

2024-10-07 00:45:03 This is going strongly in the direction of No after 7% of votes and 17% voters revealed their votes, with 83% siding with No. And the Yes is still going strong on buying more shares. This is a fascinating case for a psychology paper.

2024-10-07 00:47:45 Please believe in what you want to believe and keep your hope - that's super cool - but do not necessarily bet money on it. Not at this point.

2024-10-07 00:50:55 At least I don't go around offending everyone that doesn't agree with my perspective.

2024-10-07 00:53:26 That he's cooked?

2024-10-07 01:10:43 For those who are curious about the No logic. We know of 70+ in-and-out raids between Oct 1, 2023 and Oct 1, 2024. That counts toward "entry." And we know that regular IDF troops first entered Lebanon on Oct 2, 2024, hence the "invasion" began only in Oct. What follows: Yes for September entry market --- No for October invasion market --- Yes for November invasion market.

2024-10-07 01:11:08 Unfortunately, the media headlines have been quite misleading.

2024-10-07 01:13:51 That's going to be... impossible? ;)

2024-10-07 01:16:16 Chad is the new real Batman.

2024-10-07 01:25:23 Chad is a big country, but mostly a desert. Not that interesting, really. I wouldn't advise travelling.

2024-10-07 01:29:04 There's nothing impossible for Chuck Norris.

2024-10-07 08:16:03 I wrote a few long comments a few days ago explaining why this would in all likelihood resolve to No, asking folks not to invest into Yes at crazy prices. Some suggested that i was trying to push the price of No up, while i mostly felt sorry for people losing money by not understanding the context and the governance here. Well, I've tried, and i was mostly ignored. I think I'll just stay silent next time.

2024-10-07 08:19:36 Oki 😉

2024-10-07 16:03:49 Already after the first vote, a few of us have been telling you that it's pretty much done already, but many of you did not want to listen. In addition to the strong logic of this going P1 after P4 was declared at first, we also had market rules (even if poorly formulated), which are more nuanced than the vibes you'll get from the news headlines or Wikipedia headlines, that you chose to rest your case on. There was another market for entry, which was created for the possibility of Israeli raids, but you treated this market as if it was about the entry. This market, however, was created for a possibility of an Israeli army invading Lebanon (think infantry and tanks, not a 3-hour overnight raids by small special ops teams). As per all the evidence, footage, geolocated imagery, and detailed reports - small numbers of tanks and infantry entered Lebanon first on Oct 2. That's why this market should've resolved No, and it did. Rather than complaining, I'd suggest taking a step back, and integrating possible learnings from this experience, especially around taking news headlines as a measure of what happened on the ground.

2024-10-07 21:01:25 Re: 1) How can you vote No for a resolution proposed before a deadline? If UMA did that, they'd be essentialy saying that it's okay to propose No resolutions before a deadline - encouraging sabotaging markets and postponing market resolutions. You simply cannot do that, or the stability of the resolution governance goes to garbage.

2024-10-07 21:04:48 Re: 2) "so what you’re saying is that they went in on Sept 30, left Lebanon and then 1 day later came back and invaded? C’mon man be serious." That's exacty what I'm saying, and that's exactly what all the evidence shows. The crazy thing is that you invested $108k without doing basic research and reading any in-depth reports on the manner. Even the Wikipedia so quoted here says that they only did raids the first night. Even IDF posted video footage of special ops entering Lebanon at night on Sep 30 without any sleeping gear, with light gear, doing a quick tunnel raid. But I imagine that cognitive dissonance might be too much to overcome so soon after an unfavorable outcome, so maybe I'll just leave it here.

2024-10-07 21:07:56 Do you believe in that 2%? I haven't seen a single Yes holder commenting, oh wow, that's interesting, I haven't considered that aspect. I am questioning if I am just wasting my time here and should rather accept the money that people offer by overpaying their bets. But in some cases that's just feels plain wrong.

2024-10-08 20:41:53 Thanks for a great price on Green New Scam :) He didn't say it in 3/7 last rallies (Butler, Walker, Mint Hill).

2024-10-08 23:26:57 Odsiecz Wiednia?;)

2024-10-08 23:32:47 Remarks and rallies don’t really differ in substance.

2024-10-09 11:32:24 Sure, he never named Helene, and simply referred to it as 'hurricane'. I think the odds are good that he will not name Milton either.

2024-10-09 11:33:34 Btw. I changed my mind on Green New Scam :)

2024-10-09 11:48:30 My mistake, he mentioned Helene once.

2024-10-09 13:49:57 Dude, you are on your way to lose all your bets.

2024-10-09 13:51:00 It did hit last rally, friend...

2024-10-09 19:59:31 Damn, i missed the sale...

2024-10-09 21:22:29 I guess you see my point now even better? :)

2024-10-10 01:17:52 China 8x

2024-10-10 02:09:32 Kamala x31, China x8, Border x11. Good night!

2024-10-10 02:11:26 I have 8x for Reading.

2024-10-10 02:13:15 My software tells me 8x. And no Chinese. Hmmm.

2024-10-10 02:17:55 Damn, you're right!

2024-10-10 02:27:31 Tax you got to pay after you die ;)

2024-10-13 23:23:39 2x Venezuela, 4x Venezuelan (tar, prison gang, gang, and illegal alien)

2024-10-13 23:27:27 xD

2024-10-13 23:32:33 I listened to every moment he says Venezuela/Venezuelan. There's no doubt. Venezuela x2.

2024-10-13 23:47:40 The point is how many times did he say Venezuela. He said it twice, and then he said Venez once. That's it. No? 😄 We cannot count half-finished words that might've or might've not been the word.

2024-10-14 08:19:39 xD We're not counting what he could've said, but what he said.

2024-10-14 08:20:52 No.

2024-10-14 09:19:22 I would invite some more doubt the other way ;)

2024-10-14 13:11:17 Very different situations. Walz could've only meant 'teacher', given the context. Here, Trump could've meant Venezuela, or Venezuelans, or Venezuelan. We cannot be sure what he wanted to say, thus, we cannot conclude he was saying Venezuela.

2024-10-15 09:18:44 lol

2024-10-15 13:21:50 This one is a fun one!

2024-10-15 13:23:50 Yes, it is, indeed, on the No side though.

2024-10-16 02:46:03 Thanks guys! That one was an exciting one. Million x11 was a narrow one. Next time!

2024-10-16 02:56:09 xD good troll right here! :)

2024-10-16 02:56:50 Tax x13 + Taxing (queen) x1.

2024-10-16 03:03:23 11x my friend

2024-10-16 03:04:05 I got 14 :)

2024-10-16 23:46:13 Full house :)

2024-10-17 14:23:36 xD

2024-10-17 14:51:57 The Return of the Zombies. Next episode: Sinwar's ashes get sent to Mars by Elon Musk. Sinwar - the first person to land on Mars! Forever alive!

2024-10-17 14:53:49 Also, in case they leave the body behind but take a sample of his DNA to an Israeli lab for testing, does that mean he left Gaza? The rules do not specify how much of Sinwar is to leave Gaza! Asking for a friend.

2024-10-19 01:30:38 Uhh, that was quite a ride with this mic situation :D

2024-10-21 19:03:06 Thank you for filling my orders :) Good luck.

2024-10-21 20:35:07 Good rally!

2024-10-21 22:54:03 Says a person who bets against Tren de Aragua? :P

2024-10-21 22:54:50 Thanks Joe for Border x20 shares :)

2024-10-22 09:17:13 At least? No, not really 🙃

2024-10-22 23:12:16 Helene check.

2024-10-23 00:51:44 Thanks everyone :)

2024-10-23 23:53:27 Good luck!

2024-10-24 03:15:37 No? 🫣

2024-10-24 11:11:57 I’m his speechwriter and I can tell you that he will say it.

2024-10-24 18:47:27 I could take quite some at 81 for Mars.

2024-10-24 19:13:52 Thank you. I've gotten some more at 0.80. Good luck.

2024-10-24 19:24:45 May the Trump Games on Mars commence! May the best win! (Or, Pocahontas)

2024-10-24 19:56:59 Mars.

2024-10-25 03:43:33 Taxation doesn't count.

2024-10-25 03:44:04 1?

2024-10-25 03:57:43 RIP.

2024-10-26 02:40:14 Freaking aliens arrived after 2h 47min...! But he didn't say Mars yesterday, so where did they land?! ;)

2024-10-26 15:02:12 Mission Mars, attempt #2.

2024-10-26 18:30:48 No way. He's still speaking in Detroit.

2024-10-26 18:31:28 Bad advice :P

2024-10-26 19:43:06 Border today in Novi: 18. Border y'day in Traverse City: 17. Border two days ago in Las Vegas: 13.

2024-10-26 23:01:35 Mission Mars succeeded on the second landing attempt. Thank you all for your collaboration!

2024-10-26 23:06:44 Good bets, friend.

2024-10-27 11:37:04 2x

2024-10-27 22:07:46 Good luck everyone : )

2024-10-28 00:08:05 xD

2024-10-28 00:08:28 Pocahontas... incoming!

2024-10-28 00:09:33 Check.

2024-10-28 00:34:41 Good on you! I sold for 1c :D

2024-10-28 21:09:50 Don't listen to Padre. He did. In Traverse City three days ago.

2024-10-28 21:24:57 Did he? Which ones?

2024-10-28 21:28:28 I count on the garbage can...

2024-10-28 21:59:41 Thanks. "Built the wall" wouldn't count though. He needs to say "build the wall."

2024-10-28 22:25:18 Yeah, it doesn't. It has to be "build," as in "I will build the wall," etc.

2024-10-28 22:26:31 He basically said it once in Coachella in the last 3 weeks.

2024-10-28 22:26:54 So the odds are against you unfortunately :)

2024-10-29 18:00:02 His average rally length is 82.7 minutes.

2024-10-30 15:16:39 No, it doesn't.

2024-10-30 21:13:39 Fake News x2 today at the North Carolina rally.

2024-10-30 21:46:36 Yes, different times 🙃

2024-10-30 21:47:43 Yeah, I took a few hits lately 🙃 Part of the game! Hopefully, I learnt something from it 😉

2024-10-30 22:16:54 Hehe, thank you friend 😜

2024-11-18 09:13:54 It is not a chance anymore, really.

2024-11-18 09:15:22 Right.

2024-11-18 15:55:44 It happened once in history in a much more contentious situation than here. Do not count on that.

2024-11-18 15:58:35 This is an amusing thread 😜

2024-11-18 22:04:25 Me too

2024-11-19 22:40:55 Thanks a lot! That's helpful. What are your thoughts about IL? NBC has them with 267k outstanding votes, while AP has them at 99% so pretty much done. Feel free to send me a DM on Discord - we could brainstorm together!

2024-11-20 19:43:51 570k + 80% of 126k.

2024-11-20 23:44:59 Hello everyone! I’m excited to join this fun market 🥳 I see you had a lot fun in the comments already. I hope for more!

2024-11-21 12:01:56 Unless a calamity comes, it's pretty much done.

2024-11-22 05:53:07 xD

2024-11-23 08:34:37 That makes more sense 😅

2024-11-23 11:21:45 How many write-ins do you expect to come from California? What is your thinking and sources?

2024-11-23 23:28:55 There’s 700k or so votes left to count max + 300k that Atlas is behind in adding. So +1m max.

2024-11-25 13:37:46 The rules are pretty clear. Nevada’s None of These Candidates should not count towards third-party. “ Third-party candidates refer to any candidates not running as a Democrat or Republican, including candidates running as independents.” Marking your vote as a vote for no one doesn’t satisfy the rules.

2024-11-25 15:29:33 Yes.

2024-11-25 15:29:51 Yes, 400k votes vanished.

2024-11-25 15:50:18 It’s likely nothing. Probably a temporary mistake. 400k NJ votes can’t just vanish or become invalid 😉

2024-11-25 21:00:00 That'd be a very shitty rule cuck, if you ask me. The clarification was focused on write-ins - no one thought of the "none of the these candidates" at the time. The rules have been pretty clear from the beginning (incl. of write-ins etc.), and the clarification was just made to confirm the write-ins (because they are a third party vote). And the rules are clear that we're summing votes for candidates, not empty votes, or invalid votes, or whatever else you could have there.

2024-11-26 03:12:53 Exactly. He added 24,904 invalid write-ins incl. 7,254 from Salt Lake City.

2024-11-26 16:35:13 Stop trolling :D

2024-11-26 23:28:36 Hmm my hypothesis has been different. I assumed that he adds county-level data in the absence of state level data only when he collects all the counties (like with FL and PA). I assumed TX and CA came in late last time because not all county reports were available in the beginning. So, my model assumed 21.0k for MA and 4.9k for NE but only 2-4k for Sonski in CA and only 8k for TX. Thoughts?

2024-11-26 23:29:18 Because if he adds LA, this is done indeed.

2024-11-26 23:31:24 Because if anyone believes that Wind decided to donate $150k out of charity, you’re mistaken.

2024-11-26 23:49:19 I’m sure he does, but when? For example, we have 4.5k write-ins from Dallas alone published Nov 6 that Dave still hasn’t added to the model, not to mention another 10k elsewhere in TX. Last time, he added all the invalid TX write-ins all at once in the spring of 2021.

2024-11-30 00:28:14 Well, it’s a fiasco of good reasoning then.

2024-12-01 19:42:38 lol

2024-12-03 16:59:39 Libertarian votes. He might not even really know who that is and what crimes he committed. And he hates drugs.

2024-12-03 21:03:06 It's Nevada.

2024-12-04 07:30:26 Knows how to mistake limit order for market buy

2024-12-04 13:22:25 Friend, Dave has hundreds of thousands write-in votes in his dataset that other sources do not count in. That's why his numbers are higher. They can only go up as he adds more write-ins (GA, MT, CA remaining).

2024-12-04 13:23:04 In other words, sell while you can.

2024-12-04 13:39:16 And we are at 2.011%.

2024-12-04 14:15:39 I guess it doesn't matter much anymore, or? We are above 2% even w/o NV votes, and it can only get higher.

2024-12-04 15:21:06 Before.

2024-12-04 19:33:50 Until a new PM is appointed, Barnier will remain a PM. So, the question is if the parliament will agree on a new candidate before year's end.

2024-12-04 19:42:11 In the summer, it took Macron two months to find a candidate that could get acceptance by the parliament. So yes, while he doesn't need parliament's formal approval (although it is customary for the PM to get a confidence vote when starting), he cannot just pick anyone, because then the person gets a no confidence vote straight away. So, it's the question of time and finding someone in this complicated situation. We have 25 days.

2024-12-04 22:39:05 Doesn't matter. FDV = Current price X total supply. If they do not release more than 3% of the token within the 24h period, the FDV will remain very high, unless the price collapses.

2024-12-05 19:12:03 "I will appoint a new PM in the coming days." It means he doesn't yet have a candidate. Let's see if he finds someone before the year's end who can get parliament support. For now, Barnier a PM.

2024-12-05 19:26:08 I don't think too many Polymarket users would be against me not showing up on Monday to place bets.

2024-12-05 19:26:23 Gerard Depardie

2024-12-06 00:26:49 Xi jinping is a pathetic scammer

2024-12-06 08:55:32 Where can I watch it? I wanna see if my Nos hit.

2024-12-06 11:12:21 Until a new PM is appointed, Barnier remains in the office. Attal remained PM for 51 days after his resignation earlier this year.

2024-12-06 12:21:23 Wee-oo, wee-oo, this the the grammar police, Wee-oo, wee-oo, you are under arrest! Resistance is futile.

2024-12-06 12:23:57 :D

2024-12-06 18:21:55 Tick-tock, tick-tock.

2024-12-06 23:21:27 Ever

2024-12-07 01:56:05 Hey, that's my phrase right there!

2024-12-07 01:56:22 Naah, just kidding. You're welcome to use it!

2024-12-07 10:44:52 Article 49 of the constiution: "Except as otherwise provided in the Constitution or by law, the attendance of a majority of the total members, and the concurrent vote of a majority of the members present, are necessary for decisions of the National Assembly. In case of a tie vote, the matter is regarded as rejected." Article 65: "A motion for impeachment prescribed in Paragraph (1) may be proposed by one-third or more of the total members of the National Assembly, and requires a concurrent vote of a majority of the total members of the National Assembly for passage: Provided, that a motion for the impeachment of the President shall be proposed by a majority of the total members of the National Assembly and approved by two-thirds or more of the total members of the National Assembly."

2024-12-07 10:49:18 There is nothing in the constitution about special quorum for presidential impeachment. 150 to vote, 200 to pass.

2024-12-07 10:52:05 Quorum is 150.

2024-12-07 10:52:51 They wouldn't be able to vote if there was no quorum.

2024-12-07 10:53:08 That's what's needed to approve the motion.

2024-12-07 11:07:22 Source?

2024-12-07 11:12:41 A bunch of people say that there needs to be 200 people for the vote tallying to happen. Anybody has a source? Quorum is 150 for sure, so I'd very surprised if they don't tally the votes because there was below 200. I went through the constitution and the National Assembly Act, which discusses how the vote happens, and found nothing about special circumstances for this vote. 150 should be OK for the vote to normally proceed and be tallied. Take a look for yourself: [link removed].kr/eng_service/[link removed]?hseq=25732&lang=ENG

2024-12-07 11:13:26 The only source against what I found is a single tweet by a WP reporter. Anybody has any other source that is more reliable?

2024-12-07 11:16:43 5 is enough friend

2024-12-07 11:17:03 5 more. 3 voted already.

2024-12-07 11:19:09 What is your source? The law stipulations I cite (Constitution paragraphs 49 and 65) say 150 is enough.

2024-12-07 11:19:36 Do you have a source? I quote the law. What do you quote?

2024-12-07 11:20:12 Yeah, it looks like this. I am just curious why people say otherwise. Seems like a lot of confusion based on a tweet by a WP reporter.

2024-12-07 11:25:47 It looks like this but I'd like to give them a chance to quote any source.

2024-12-07 13:23:40 The vote took place, obviously. They just did not count the ballots. Everything will resolve N except below 180. There is media consensus that there was a vote - claiming otherwise is a rule cuck and will not fly with UMA.

2024-12-07 16:55:44 The assembly released an official statement that the vote was held but the ballots were not counted. So the vote happened but we do not know how many in favour, how many against, so it is 0 votes - they were not counted. The only market that can resolve Yes is under 180.

2024-12-07 16:58:20 Without the count, we cannot know if it was in fact 180 - 200 in favour of impeachment. As simple as that.

2024-12-08 02:00:15 How is this not at 99c? :D Assad flew away already. [link removed]

2024-12-08 02:01:50 "Orders had reportedly been issued to them to withdraw from Damascus International Airport following the departure of a private plane." I bet $2k that it was him in another market :) I bet on my beliefs!

2024-12-08 02:04:04 Pretty much, yes.

2024-12-08 11:17:16 Rules are clear but unfortunate. Perhaps, they meant “Israeli-occupied” Golan Heights, but that’s not what they wrote. Anyway, Israel would have to move beyond the DMZ for this market to have a chance to resolve to Y.

2024-12-08 14:07:32 Mr Hermon is part of the DMZ within the Golan Heights, which per the rules of this market, doesn't count.

2024-12-08 14:09:56 That doesn't count because it's DMZ of the Golan Heights. Did you read the rules?

2024-12-08 19:14:31 What’s the source? :)

2024-12-08 21:51:29 There are territories within the DMZ that are not part of the Golan. For example Mt Hermon. And they captured Tal al-Hara hill, which is outside of the DMZ. So, however you slice it, it’s a Y.

2024-12-09 00:42:07 So if UMA votes P4 Too Early, then we wait until the second vote to see?

2024-12-09 19:31:38 Ammunition storage

2024-12-11 19:54:45 It's not that sophisticated to quote the market rule that excludes the Golan Heights from the market and to point to previous UMA P4 decisions as reference. But what do I know :D

2024-12-11 22:19:59 Hihi :D

2024-12-11 22:25:09 All good Andy, all good. Quite excited to see how this unfolds in the next hours ;) Good luck!

2024-12-11 22:43:11 Isn’t predicting UMA much more fun than predicting what Israeli or Syrian forces might do?

2024-12-12 06:23:01 Unless there’s a clear non-raid crossing beyond the Golan, this is going N on the New Years. So, when you bet, research the border of the Golan, and assess your chances of Israel doing that. Good luck either way!

2024-12-12 23:44:58 We cashed in some of the profits that you offered. Making profits can’t go wrong, you know.

2024-12-13 08:50:06 Not sure if the Y holders realize it, but proposing Y again so quickly, significantly decreases the chances of this market resolving Y. Godspeed.

2024-12-13 09:35:12 Mt Hermon to the North, Wadi Al-Ruqqad to the East, Yarmuk to the South, Jordan River to the West.

2024-12-13 09:43:05 About to flip :)

2024-12-13 11:51:18 For those who wonder, why this is not a Y yet. 1) The rules exclude the Golan Heights from consideration, which span 4km east of the DMZ and end at Wadi Al-Ruqqad. 2) Securing the border and filling the empty strategic positions after Syrian army withdrawal may be argued not to be an invasion. 3) Raids deeper into the Syrian territory are not enough. If the IDF stayed however - that would count. 4) We've already had two UMA votes which went P4 despite evidence of IDF's presence in the DMZ and in two places slightly beyond it. That's a very clear message from UMA: occupying the DMZ and around is not enough for this market to go Y. UMA is saying that we need to see more to consider the market rules to be satisfied. ---- Now, I am not arguing here what is right or wrong, I am just giving you an overview of why the situation is as it is. Now, I'd advise you to bet not based on what you believe is right, but based on what you believe is likely to happen in this market. My personal evaluation is that at this point of time, the market will resolve N, unless the IDF go deeper into Syria. Good luck!

2024-12-13 11:55:57 Yes. But only within the Syrian part of the Golan Heights so far. And you're welcome :) I tried to be as honest as I could.

2024-12-13 12:03:44 I agree with you that excluding the Golan Heights is very vague. But it is what it is, and that's what we got to work with. I also agree with you that Israel entered Syria and took control over the buffer zone. The thing is that they positioned themselves only within the Golan Heights, so that doesn't count toward Y for this market, as confirmed by two UMA votes. Dura lex sed lex. And according to Encyclopedia Brittanica, Mt Hermon is part of the Golan Heights.

2024-12-13 12:05:44 I am not saying this to boost my position, though I am not sure if you're going to believe me. I see your logic, but this is not how things work at UMA, regardless whether we like it or not. Voting P4 means that what we've seen SO FAR is not enough for a Y resolution. Thus, if we are not going to see an escalation, this will, in all likelihood, resolve N after New Year's. In other words, UMA doesn't vote P4 even though Y is better than N but only a little, so let's wait for now, and if nothing changes it is a Y. Nope. It votes P4 because Y is not sufficient. That's it.

2024-12-13 13:26:28 Then I’d say Yes chances at UMA would increase, yes. I’ve been in the Y camp as the right thing from the beginning. I just bought N because it seemed more likely given the Uma interpretation of the rules. Actually, I’ve sold for now, given that it doesn’t seem that Israel is stopping. Let’s see what I do next 😇

2024-12-13 13:44:32 I’m back on N.

2024-12-13 17:20:54 There's 0 chance that the buffer zone will be included. We've already had 2 votes on that.

2024-12-13 23:30:56 xD

2024-12-14 12:07:33 [link removed] This AP article spells out nicely the argument as to why all this might not qualify as an invasion.

2024-12-14 23:02:14 Flip-flop, flip-flop. Damn, betting on what UMA will do is clearly so much more exciting than betting on what the IDF will do 🤣😜

2024-12-14 23:22:31 Well, we’re supposed to bet on a likely resolution outcome, rather than on our own understanding of truth. You can only earn money doing the first, and that’s why I’m here really. While there are some decent arguments that this shouldn’t qualify as an invasion, I would personally resolve this market to Y, I think. The thing is however that we have data on how UMA voted on Lebanon September invasion and in two votes on this market in the last days, and we know that this is most likely going P4 again, and thus without further developments as P1 after New Years. In fact, it should go P4 given the previous two votes, or otherwise UMA would be inconsistent. So, you can either ignore this, talk about the right thing, and likely lose money, or you can integrate the knowledge of UMA threshold on invasion markets, and likely make some money by betting N. That’s it really.

2024-12-15 16:26:45 Sense? This comment makes none ;)

2024-12-15 17:02:07 For those without a good understanding of the governance at play here, I’d advise you to stay out, observe, and watch. Or follow those who understand it. Much better choice than trying to figure out “the truth” and losing money due to lack of familiarity with the context. All the best!

2024-12-15 17:27:10 I’m +$5k on this market my friend. Been selling and rebuying multiple times since 20c.

2024-12-15 22:15:42 I did a fun exercise. Given that all the encyclopedias and Wikipedia mention that Golan Heights are 1,800 sq km big and that 1,200 is Israeli-occupied, I checked that on the map. Israeli portion is indeed 1,200 sq km, and the DMZ is 245 sq km. That leaves us with 355 sq km to the East of the DMZ that should be part of Golan. That implies following of Wadi Allan, which some sources mention as the Eastern Border of the Golan, and including Mt Hermon. Only then we get 600 sq km. That means quite a lot more to the East than the DMZ. I am posting this just for fun, not necessarily as an argument for anything :)

2024-12-15 22:59:29 Time for getting out is slowly closing.

2024-12-15 23:02:26 I really hope you don’t 🙂🫣

2024-12-15 23:05:06 Dude, chill please. If we win, cash in and be happy. No need to be condescending 🤔🙂

2024-12-15 23:09:49 Could be, could be. But we’d need something new to happen, like MSM calling it an invasion, or Israel going further, or Syria calling it an invasion, or UN condemning it, or Western countries calling it an invasion, etc. Then this could go Y.

2024-12-15 23:53:44 Brace for impact 🚀 (one way or another) It’s been fun hanging out with you guys. See you in another episode of Drama with UMA 🤣

2024-12-16 00:26:27 Yup!

2024-12-16 09:38:46 [link removed] This town is in the Golan Heights.

2024-12-16 15:40:18 Whether we like it or not, the facts on the ground are that UMA voted P4 for the third time. Game theory of uncoordinated social behavior suggests that unless there’s substantial NEW information in favor of P2 emerging before year’s end, UMA voters will be incentivized to vote P1. Why? Given that there was not enough evidence in the eyes of the voters to vote P2 for now, the logical assumption you can make - in the absence of new information - is that the voters will be more likely to vote P1 than P2 at the end, and thus you will also vote P1, even if you believe P2 to be more right. Thus, the final voting result might be close to 100% on P2, even if the matter is going to remain contentious to say the least. That’s just the mechanics of it. So, what could be new information that could sway the vote? 1) MSM beginning to openly and clearly call it an invasion, 2) Western governments beginning to openly and clearly call it an invasion, 3) Syria or Israel beginning to openly and clearly call it an invasion (please be mindful that Jolani so far talked about Israeli aggression only), 4) UN condemning Israel’s invasion, etc., 5) Israeli troops going substantially beyond Syrian part of the Golan. Thus, when you bet, I’d suggest assessing the probability of such developments, and acting accordingly. Good luck!

2024-12-16 15:48:10 Have I shared anything about what I believe is my assessment of the different probabilities? I’m trying to make as much money as I can. I’ve been holding N from the low 20s, buying and selling at different times. I’m locking in part of the $6k profit I’ve already made and downsizing my position now that it reached 70. My actual assessment is 75/25 or so, so there’s not much upside left for me, especially compared to other markets.

2024-12-16 15:50:21 But who knows maybe me making $90k on $16k investment in four months is a coincidence and luck, and you guys have it all figured out 😘

2024-12-17 18:30:29 The dam story is a mistranslation. Let’s get back to where we were 🙂

2024-12-18 09:45:29 No Israeli troops ever made it to the dam. It was a mistranslation from Hezbollah message saying they could do it.

2024-12-18 09:53:57 In order to make money, two things have to happen. 1) You have to buy a position, 2) The market needs to be resolved in favor of your position (alternatively, you can sell earlier if it appreciates in price). Please notice that in neither of the two steps, there’s anything about being right, or anything about the truth. You don’t make money by being right - you make money by betting the way a market resolves. Hence, my kind advice to everyone is: Sure, study maps and scout for new info, but first and foremost spend time understanding the governance. Because to those familiar with the governance, it is clear that if the market’s deadline was today, it would most definitely resolve No. So, the most relevant question you can ask yourself is: Do I expect any new information to emerge that would incentivize UMA token holders to change their vote? And please be mindful, that for them to change, it’s not about reflecting back, but about new developments. Once decided in the past, the precedent is settled, and the voters will use it going forward. Part of the way the governance works too. Good luck everyone 👋🙂

2024-12-18 09:56:40 Thanks 😊

2024-12-18 09:59:19 Yeah 👍 And I wrote it a few times: I think Yes would be a more accurate resolution to this market, in my opinion. But likely I wouldn’t make money betting Yes, so I’m on the No side.

2024-12-18 10:03:38 UMA has been very clear so far that for them not enough has happened to say that Israel invaded Syria. Although we cannot know for sure what’s their reasoning, the consequences are clear: No is a huge favorite.

2024-12-18 10:05:26 Raids don’t matter. Dura lex sed lex.

2024-12-18 10:19:30 The rules are part of a larger universe. The rules are the same as in the Lebanon invade market, which was different than Lebanon entry market. In fact, all those markets started at the same time. September invasion market resolved No because we only had raids by that time. Many people cried. You have a choice, either you learn from it, or you repeat the same mistake for a second time, ignoring what happened to those before you.

2024-12-18 11:03:36 The P4 means that there is not enough for P2. If nothing changes, that defaults to P1. There’s no ‘wait and see’ at UMA. It’s ‘is it enough?’ The answer so far has been unequivocal No, so P1 would be the resolution if the deadline was today. I hope that helps!

2024-12-18 11:06:21 That’s why the most prudent thing when you’re winning is often to wait for the evidence to settle in before you go about proposing.

2024-12-18 16:39:32 A philosopher pondering the Golan Heights dilemma asked, “If land is claimed but not acknowledged, does it truly belong to anyone? Or is it just an exercise in Universally Misaligned Assumptions - UMA for short?”

2024-12-19 18:05:44 The right thing happened, but process-wise in the worst possible way 🧐 See you next time!

2024-12-21 06:11:01 The latter

2024-12-22 13:30:17 Money reallocation from people with less reading comprehension to people with more reading comprehension. What an amazing platform 😇

2024-12-22 20:26:49 In the first CR draft they stroke a provision freezing pay raises, meaning pay raises would now be possible. Upon pressure, they removed that provision that stroke the freeze from subsequent drafts, meaning no pay raise can happen. They removed it long before the deadline. The rules are written horribly, so I’d argue that this market should be refunded. But if needs to resolve, it can only go Yes 👍

2024-12-22 20:28:01 Oh, by default the pay raise cannot happen because of the provisions of the omnibus - that’s why they needed to strike in the CR for the raise to be possible.

2024-12-22 20:29:43 It did 😇 Just check page 15 of the first draft, where they strike the reference to 118-47 in omnibus. That text is no longer to be found in subsequent drafts 😇

2024-12-22 20:37:02 https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20241216/CR.pdf

2024-12-22 20:39:13 Yeah, it doesn’t. The raise is blocked elsewhere so you need a concrete wording in CR to allow for a raise. They did that in the first draft on page 15, but removed it later because of the pressure. Nicely explained here: https://x.com/MattGlassman312/status/1869391578420433169

2024-12-22 20:48:44 Sec 101 (1) was removed from the first draft, restoring the language that didn’t allow for a raise. I mean, the rules are super horrible - hence the confusion. I’d refund the whole thing, but the fact is that the part allowing for a raise was deleted after the first draft.

2024-12-22 20:56:22 When did you become so reasonable? 🙂

2024-12-22 21:38:46 That’s why the rules are misleading and badly formulated. They deleted the clause, rather than added something.

2024-12-23 10:21:51 Epic. Brings up the memories. Such a movie!

2024-12-23 20:01:05 It's pretty much done :)

2024-12-23 22:08:31 Wishful expression of a desire.

2024-12-24 16:02:03 are you either braindead or just braindead to ask that to a person with $300,000 PNL?

2024-12-24 18:46:21 Nope.

2024-12-25 23:01:25 Let’s go 😇

2024-12-26 11:55:43 It’s not part of the rules, correct. It’s part of prediction markets implicit rules. This doesn’t suffice for Y.

2024-12-26 14:28:29 Yes, we have fact check markets, and this isn’t one. Generally, unless otherwise stated, only events after market’s creation pertain to it, otherwise the market would be immediately resolvable and would make no sense. The rules were written poorly, again, and you suffer from that. I’m sorry.

2024-12-26 20:46:42 Don’t mistake bravado for confidence.

2024-12-27 09:18:22 The rules don’t imply that an event before shouldn’t count. They just don’t exclude it explicitly - it’s an important difference. And i don’t remember any good examples, unfortunately.

2024-12-28 08:51:43 Tick-tock, tick-tock 😴

2024-12-28 10:37:04 “ said a source in the presidential administration” - things like this will not suffice. What we need is an official and explicit statement from the government, military, or intelligence services. MPs also don’t count.

2024-12-28 14:59:13 Great for N holders 😎

2024-12-28 15:06:49 Good luck with any conclusions to be drawn by year’s end 😉👌

2024-12-28 15:17:01 Well written Libitum 👍

2024-12-28 15:17:44 It might actually be their tactic to unofficially blame Russia, so that everyone knows, while not doing it on the record to preserve the relationship.

2024-12-28 15:27:14 Anonymous is never official.

2024-12-28 16:54:51 Will you trust me?

2025-01-02 21:53:47 HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHell I know

2025-01-03 18:25:08 Johnson loses the first ballot. Norman voted for Jordan and Massie for Emmer.

2025-01-04 06:17:03 xD

2025-01-06 14:44:30 Be mindful he needs to announce resignation from the PM post, not the party leadership post. There’s a separate market for party leadership resignation announcement.

2025-01-06 14:45:23 Please be mindful he needs to announce resignation from the PM post, not the party leadership post. There’s a separate market for party leadership resignation announcement.

2025-01-06 15:23:56 Yeah, that’s why Jean Chretien said upon resigning from party leadership in 2003 that he would stay on in his PM job "until the day I decide to quit."

2025-01-07 14:07:52 This is a fun market! Let’s go!

2025-01-07 15:01:25 “The chief of the state anti-corruption agency apologized Tuesday for failing to execute a detention warrant against impeached President Yoon Suk Yeol but vowed to succeed in a second attempt.”

2025-01-07 15:09:04 I have absolutely no intention of holding until the resolution. It’s simply bad investing approach. You should respond to market movements and new information and adjust. I will reassess the odds once the second attempt starts after seeing what they come up with. For now, I think there’s an upside in holding Y. But what do i know, maybe buying lower and selling higher is not the way to make money.

2025-01-07 15:10:52 You’ve just bought very overpriced N, I’d say. You’d be better off waiting.

2025-01-07 15:13:59 What makes you so confident in them succeeding the second time? Can you write me on discord? _rozi_

2025-01-07 15:17:35 What i shared is fresh from today and the very reason i bought Y. Pumping is when you share semi relevant info to pump the price beyond what it is worth. I think Y is underpriced - that’s why i bought at 54. And if you think that my comment makes any noticeable difference to the price, well, good luck to your investing 😜

2025-01-07 21:19:54 Indeed, a very average American 😉

2025-01-07 21:20:23 Hard to come by, believe me.

2025-01-08 09:33:17 xD

2025-01-08 20:04:40 Susan, this was inappropriate. Your next performance review will be heavily affected.

2025-01-08 21:28:39 Yes, you cannot read the map. It's quite far still.

2025-01-10 09:15:48 … to make any money.

2025-01-10 09:21:06 Yes

2025-01-13 20:42:19 I can help you at 88c with 3k shares :)

2025-01-13 20:55:06 An arrest warrant was issued for Yoon, as opposed to a detention warrant. So, if he is apprehended, he is arrested. Either way, it doesn't really matter. If they take him away by force, by all means, all the media will say he's arrested and we go Yes, regardless of the legal definitions.

2025-01-14 14:37:21 Any Yes takers to fill me up at 60c? I bid 4k shares.

2025-01-14 21:07:30 "Investigators and police have reportedly dismantled the first barricade outside the presidential residence. Police are repeatedly broadcasting warnings: “Obstructing the execution of the warrant may result in immediate arrest for obstruction of official duties."

2025-01-14 22:02:25 That would be a good case.

2025-01-15 12:12:42 Don't be a man of your word, be a man of your money!

2025-01-15 13:26:13 Yes it does

2025-01-16 16:51:48 A gamble. If we get an official announcement, it’s a Y. If not, it’s a N. This market is about an announcement, not approval.

2025-01-16 16:55:52 To let the public know that there is a deal?

2025-01-16 23:34:22 I mean, the fire stopped to actively burn a while back 😜

2025-01-17 02:32:45 [link removed]

2025-01-17 02:41:09 “ [link removed] “ Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office confirms that the Israeli and Hamas negotiating teams have signed a ceasefire and hostage release deal in Doha.”

2025-01-17 09:23:22 Did you follow any news overnight? 😛

2025-01-19 18:54:38 The world we're living in is a meme.

2025-01-21 08:04:49 I’ve put 2k at 80c.

2025-01-21 08:35:20 OK, fine. Good price, still. Thanks and good luck!

2025-01-22 07:18:11 You guys are in pretty bad shape. I think we’re going to 30 within a week or so, after the hype of Trump talking about it goes down.

2025-01-22 13:37:56 What news article?

2025-01-22 23:19:28 Missed it? Are you sure that is what’s happening? 🙂

2025-01-24 16:24:26 Please reconsider betting on things you unfortunately do not understand...

2025-01-25 20:40:52 We will see in due time 😇

2025-01-25 20:48:13 At max a creation of a team to look into stuff, I reckon. But let’s see 👀

2025-01-25 20:58:01 Most likely a promise of expediting through Congress. That’s my sense.

2025-01-25 21:02:21 That’s it - Trump said they would do it through Congress. Most likely not before May. gg.

2025-01-25 21:05:11 Yes, he said that, but that’s completely unrealistic. It’s going to be part of the reconciliation bill, and to get that beast done in 100 days would be a shock. They have 1 vote majority in Congress and there are many contentious topics in there. Brace for tough negotiations.

2025-01-25 21:07:16 Dude, do you have any clue? It’s going to be part of the reconciliation. No Dem will vote for that bill.

2025-01-25 21:54:35 Yeah, I’m selling that cheap only today. No more offer tomorrow 😌

2025-01-26 09:27:36 Possibility of an executive order is now priced out.

2025-01-26 11:53:50 If this is your reason to bet, you will likely lose your money.

2025-01-26 14:09:33 Btw. thanks for deleting the earlier comment. I now successfully re-stocked :)

2025-01-28 08:39:03 My honest opinion: It is a flip-coin situation, but I am still slightly leaning toward N. I will see if I sell now, or feel like gambling on this :D

2025-01-28 08:39:42 5 days since Eaton got to 95% my friend. It was in the evening on the 22nd.

2025-01-29 15:42:51 That was fun. Thanks everyone. Until the next time!

2025-01-29 18:27:01 I think we are more concerned with Norway over here.

2025-01-30 10:53:32 👍

2025-01-30 14:20:58 Kimchi in pierogi that doesn’t sound like a good idea 🤔

2025-01-30 21:13:32 Shaking, shaking, baby!

2025-02-01 12:49:30 My understanding not, but I asked Polymarket for a clarification.

2025-02-02 14:07:58 Say what? 🤔

2025-02-12 11:34:15 FV below 5c.

2025-02-12 17:47:19 "This market will resolve to "Yes" if the United States officially imposes new sanctions of any form against Russia." Those sanctions are not against Russia but two random Russian citizens. If they sanction Russian officials, sure, we go Yes. But not here.

2025-02-12 17:49:13 I am disputing.

2025-02-12 17:57:57 They sanctioned a private firm, not the Russian state in any capacity. Trump was on the call with Putin today being best buddies. Let's be serious here.

2025-02-12 17:59:35 https://oodaloop.com/briefs/cyber/russian-cybercrime-network-targeted-for-sanctions-across-us-uk-and-australia/

2025-02-12 18:41:16 Yup 👍

2025-02-12 19:04:53 "Will Trump sanction Russia before March?" Nope, didn't happen yet, so stay tuned.

2025-02-12 19:20:20 I think you need to refresh your page.

2025-02-12 20:35:43 https://pmexpressng.com/six-nigerians-sanctioned-by-us-over-6m-cyber-scam/ Same executive order. Were these sanctions against Nigeria? No. Unless, the sanctioned individuals acted on behalf of the Russian state, it cannot qualify. And there’s no evidence that they did.

2025-02-12 21:11:24 It's about a principle. Sanctioning six random Nigerians did not constitute sanctions on Nigeria.

2025-02-13 07:02:18 As denizz pointed out: This "E.O. 14144" refers to "Executive Order 14144: Strengthening and Promoting Innovation in the Nation's Cybersecurity". It does not refer to "Executive Order 14114: Taking Additional Steps With Respect to the Russian Federation’s Harmful Activities".

2025-02-13 07:02:44 Either you're confusing 14144 with 14114 or you're manipulating.

2025-02-13 15:28:49 What argument do you have? This is so improbable i cannot really think of anything.

2025-02-13 18:38:55 https://polymarket.com/event/russia-x-ukraine-ceasefire-in-2025/russia-x-ukraine-ceasefire-in-2025 Same price but you have until year's end...

2025-02-13 18:39:14 https://polymarket.com/event/russia-x-ukraine-ceasefire-in-2025/russia-x-ukraine-ceasefire-in-2025 Check this one out. Same price but until the year's end, so much safer.

2025-02-14 07:23:43 Sure. But that has no bearing on whether Ukraine cedes sovereignty over that territory to Russia.

2025-02-14 21:43:18 What a shit show. I asked Polymarket for a clarification two days ago when this whole rules-cucking began, and we get it at the very end of an UMA vote. Jeez.

2025-02-15 10:39:42 BuckMySalls - Hey, I was supposed to be the biggest holder here :D

2025-02-16 22:58:41 🦊

2025-02-17 14:33:38 gg

2025-02-18 09:24:42 https://x.com/kyledcheney/status/1891668126044991992

2025-02-18 09:25:00 It's done. We just have to wait until the dispute is done.

2025-02-18 09:26:10 Let me do that!

2025-02-18 09:29:44 I'll do it alone, no probs. I just need to align with the disputer for him to not dispute the proposal again :D

2025-02-18 09:33:07 Someone was faster than me. To propose it's 250. To dispute it's -750.

2025-02-18 12:27:09 So it cannot never resolve Y if he never becomes the head of DOGE? That makes no sense. It's a Y now.

2025-02-18 17:53:15 The title gives off a wrong impression. If the 2025 market goes Y, Elon must go Y here too because of the same cessation clause. The two markets should trade at quite a similar price at this point, given how likely the 2025 market is to go Yes.

2025-02-18 18:45:22 This market has an additional line about cessation.

2025-02-20 06:25:36 Because they saw a tweet and wanna make a quick buck?

2025-02-20 06:27:14 In that case, please accept my sincere apology for my misinformation 🙂😉

2025-02-20 06:29:11 [link removed]

2025-02-20 08:17:44 There’s plenty of hopeful crypto bros. The time will tell 😌

2025-02-21 06:11:29 I’m sorry for your future loss.

2025-02-21 08:39:27 I mean, it is the case my friend.

2025-03-04 15:42:55 Transgender was part of his prepared speech at the CPAC conference, at the governors meeting, and at the GOP conference, all recently. The word was also part of his prepared ending of each rally before the election. And now we have McNabb in the audience. Try telling the story of her getting hit with a ball in her face without saying the word transgender. FV 80-85c. Good luck!

2025-03-05 03:04:07 OpenAI doesn't count. Name of a company, written together.

2025-03-06 20:10:40 Trump signed the EO today. Done.

2025-03-06 20:11:02 [link removed]

2025-03-09 01:53:41 I’m Holding my Yes!

2025-03-09 11:01:46 There's rarely such a thing as free money.

2025-03-11 08:20:42 So is you're betting ;)

2025-03-11 08:31:30 It never was economically motivated, so your thought process is quite unconvincing to me.

2025-03-11 08:31:52 Thanks for filling me!

2025-03-13 16:40:52 WSJ: Putin Rejects Immediate Cease-Fire in Ukraine

2025-03-14 05:13:34 The way this is presented is manipulative…

2025-03-14 10:06:25 NYT: The remarks by the Russian leader suggested he wanted to draw out negotiations or make a truce impossible.

2025-03-14 11:33:28 Oops.

2025-03-15 08:00:30 Ferguson decided to farm the rewards. Oh wait, they don’t work at 90c 🧐

2025-03-15 16:08:06 Because the bill was probably still in DC, while he was in Florida.

2025-03-15 16:10:32 He doesn't do autopen.

2025-03-15 17:09:20 Done. Just signed

2025-03-15 17:12:12 [link removed]

2025-03-16 02:07:31 There’s an official White House press release

2025-03-16 10:49:44 Good job giving only part of that quote that makes it seems that it supports your position 😘😌 “ We are discussing it with the Americans. We are preparing for the meeting, and it will be organized as soon as the need for it arises while there is contact at other levels. These meetings, telephone conversations can be organized quite quickly, but for now I can’t say anything specific.”

2025-03-16 10:50:47 He also said on the same day: “ We take this [ceasefire proposal] as an attempt to give a respite to the Ukrainian troops, who are now going through difficult times, the Russian army is advancing in all directions and in this situation it [the ceasefire] can be perceived as some kind of attempt to give time for the rearmament and regrouping of the Ukrainian military. Our opposition, our concerns, are well known to all, and we brought them to the Americans too.”

2025-03-17 10:04:25 You’d be better off betting on astronomy 😉

2025-03-18 08:40:42 What about the 1m you made on 2% third party? ;)

2025-03-18 08:53:44 Let's go!

2025-03-18 19:02:56 Will be interesting days ahead!

2025-03-18 21:09:19 Someone is delusional here. I hope it's not me :D

2025-03-18 21:24:03 Sure. We already have an official statement from Kremlin that Putin ordered immediate energy ceasefire. All we're missing is a similar statement from Zelenskiy. It's hard for me to imagine that we don't get that very soon.

2025-03-18 21:24:35 ""Vladimir Putin responded positively to this initiative [energy ceasefire] and immediately gave the Russian military the corresponding order." [link removed]

2025-03-18 21:29:40 Yeah, understood. You believe the chance of a delay or annulment is over 10%. I believe it's below 10%. It's the biggest win Trump got so far, no way he lets it pass after he already announced it publicly that it's happening.

2025-03-18 21:37:34 All we need is a confirmation from Zelenskyy and he’s already said he supports it.

2025-03-18 22:33:15 Sure. As he always does.

2025-03-18 22:33:56 We will know soon enough :)

2025-03-19 08:01:00 Kremlin already made an official statement that they agreed. When Zelenskyy says the same, it’s done.

2025-03-19 10:28:19 The Apr 20 market requires a halt in "all theaters of war." That rule was excluded from the other markets created afterwards. In addition, the energy ceasefire market rules require a "mutually agreed halt in military engagement, specifically covering energy infrastructure," which means that an energy ceasefire is a type of "mutually agreed halt in military engagement." Therefore, as per the rules, a partial ceasefire on energy is enough to resolve the Mar 21 market to Y. Kremlin already issued an official statement that Putin agreed to it and gave the orders to implement it. Zelenskiy is getting briefed by the WH today, and in all likelihood will also agree. If so, the Friday market can be proposed with Y.

2025-03-19 11:11:36 Peskov: Putin did not cancel the order to cease fire in Ukraine's energy infrastructure, despite Kyiv's provocations.

2025-03-19 11:12:02 We just need an affirmative statement from Zelenskiy today after his call with Trump.

2025-03-19 17:10:00 He's got $600k+ in winnings. How much do you have?

2025-03-21 18:03:34 nothing will happen by sunday

2025-03-21 22:23:25 :D

2025-03-23 23:23:01 Me too. This way Kpop wins for sure.

2025-03-24 23:27:38 What a shit show.

2025-03-25 15:55:35 I proposed. We had a formal confirmation from Kremlin a week ago. Now, we have Ukrainian defense minister confirming. And the US. And all the media. It's done. [link removed]

2025-03-26 16:49:28 Here's an official updated confirmation on the energy ceasefire from Kremlin listing what type of objets the ceasefire covers: [link removed]

2025-03-26 17:29:23 Friend, this goes Y. Save your time for something productive :)

2025-03-27 19:11:46 I disputed by mistake. RIP.

2025-03-27 19:18:33 not really. -$750.

2025-03-28 00:57:37 My take on what happened in the April mineral deal market: https://mrozi.substack.com/p/05m-scam-on-the-mineral-deal-market/

2025-03-28 08:56:28 GG, congrats to the No holders 👍

2025-03-30 19:47:43 I wrote an article about this market: Easy 35% profit for No or a market scam? Check it out if you're curious and let me know what you think. [link removed]

2025-03-30 20:27:38 Thanks! Yeah, the legal side is an important angle. Aragorn and I did some research earlier and concluded that legislation is indeed needed, so in full agreement here. On the other hand, we've also seen Trump disregarding legal requirements and going through with stuff. I doubt he'd take the risk for the BTC reserve tough.

2025-03-30 20:36:31 Thanks for the prompt! I have just added a paragraph on that :)

2025-03-30 22:01:38 Thanks for your comment and feedback. Let me answer by citing Trump from the Crypto Summit a day after signing the EO: "The federal government is already among the largest holders of bitcoin, as you know. Really one of the largest holders in the world with as many as 200,000 bitcoin obtained via civil law and various other forms of law and including enforcement actions. These existing holdings will form the foundation of the new reserve." "In addition, my order directs federal agencies to conduct an inventory of all crypto assets currently held by the US government and determine how they can be transferred easily to the treasury. Nonbitcoin digital assets will be held in a new US digital asset stockpile where they will be managed properly." Everything in future tense, and he even said he ordered them to look into how to do it. There's simply no argument that this has already been done.

2025-03-30 22:05:09 [link removed] Is Trump manipulating too? ;)

2025-03-30 23:37:40 Sponsored and brought to you by Falun Gong.

2025-04-01 09:34:17 I wrote a post explaining why this market is unlikely to resolve Yes. If you're curious: [link removed]

2025-04-01 09:35:58 And a loss is not a full loss until you exit your position too ;)

2025-04-01 13:29:34 Where did I misquote it? I copy-pasted from the EO directly.

2025-04-01 22:32:42 lol

2025-04-02 09:14:50 To the place i belong…. West Virginia…!

2025-04-02 21:03:28 OpenAI did not count when compund words did not count. Another time it counted, when compound words counted. Here, they count. So it goes Yes.

2025-04-03 05:48:15 Thanks, it’s done

2025-04-03 06:25:16 They can impeach with 6 Yes votes.

2025-04-03 20:54:19 correct

2025-04-03 22:20:55 Let’s go!!!

2025-04-03 23:36:46 Hello!

2025-04-07 09:48:01 Nothing ever happens.

2025-04-21 13:06:19 The rules do not mention that the audit needs to be general or encompassing all the aid and therefore the last audit ordered qualifies for a Yes. I've just proposed.

2025-04-21 13:25:16 I can either trade based on the actual rules, or imagined rules. If they want only a specific audit to qualify, that needs to go into the rules.

2025-04-21 13:26:22 But the audit that qualifies for a yes was not a general audit, so what do you mean?

2025-04-21 13:28:01 Minerals was pretty much a scam. Here’s different. The rules do not require a general audit, so any audit of the aid in the given timeline is enough.

2025-04-21 13:35:28 I do not act in bad faith, as far as I can notice. I am happy to be proven wrong, but I have read this one: [link removed] and it meets the market rules.

2025-04-21 13:39:37 DoS has sent $30m for investigating war crimes in Ukraine and has just ordered an audit of whether the funds are used in a "focused and effective" way. That meets the market rules. [link removed]

2025-04-21 13:42:07 Yes, it's $30m sent in aid. What am I missing? Definition: "Foreign aid refers to the resources - such as money, goods, technical assistance, or services - that one country voluntarily provides to another, typically to promote development, support humanitarian efforts, or advance diplomatic or strategic interests."

2025-04-21 14:11:13 Which server?

2025-04-21 20:02:59 The situation here is: The market was created against the conversation about an audit of the military aid to Ukraine, but neither the title nor the rules speak toward that, so we got a market about auditing any aid, big or small, and therefore the controversy. By adding a clarification that we need an audit of 50%+ of the aid, or that we need an audit of the military aid, we'd have the rules altered significantly mid-game, which would be pretty bad.

2025-04-21 20:21:30 We might not get a clarification of the rules in the end, though.

2025-04-21 20:24:34 I see your point, but to trade, I need to know that I can rely on the rules, rather than trying to guess what they wanted the market to be about when it isn't about that per the title and the rules. It's one thing to rig the market against the rules (mineral deal), the other to have a market that actually allows the resolution given the audit at hand.

2025-04-21 20:30:12 Agreed.

2025-04-22 09:37:36 ACA provides funds that directly aid Ukraine, eg by sending 150 forensic experts. In-kind aid is aid. So, I disagree with the clarification, but I accept it. Kudos to Polymarket for handling this well. Congrats to the No holders for now! See you another time :)

2025-04-24 11:06:14 Let’s go!!!

2025-04-25 20:14:05 Thanks for playing. That one was an easy one.

2025-04-26 06:49:07 Uhh, i thought he wouldn’t 🧐 Let’s see!

2025-04-26 08:23:02 No suit :)

2025-04-26 08:23:44 Look at the pictures of him before the war started and you’ll know.

2025-04-26 08:24:00 Or all the order politicians.

2025-04-26 12:12:38 The other market resolved, meaning Zelensky didn’t wear a suit. If he didn’t wear it for the funeral, he’s not wearing it before June either. GG. https://polymarket.com/event/will-zelensky-wear-suit-next-trump-meeting?tid=1745669500458

2025-04-28 00:28:33 If you want to know why this market will resolve No, take a look here: [link removed]

2025-04-28 08:47:16 I am glad you remain optimistic, and that even if you lose, it won't matter because of the bigger issues you speak about. This way, I don't have to be worried about my counterparties' being sad about losing. I hear it will be peanuts compared to the other worries.

2025-04-29 12:02:20 which riding could be flipped? maybe maybe nunavut. what else really?

2025-04-29 14:25:34 Liberals got 30% of late special ballots in 2021 in Terrebone, while BQ got 40%.

2025-04-29 14:27:39 In both Windsor and Miramichi, LIB had an advantage in late special ballots in 2021, but that advantage would need to triple in size for them to flip.

2025-04-29 14:31:25 Regarding mail advantage, that depends. In 2021 in Vancouver Kingsway, which is also contentious, they performed worse in the mail votes than in the riding.

2025-04-29 15:05:49 Can you write me on discord? _rozi_

2025-04-30 19:02:34 :D

2025-05-01 09:13:35 May 8 is the day

2025-05-01 11:23:26 Did you actually read the Ukraine deal ANALista?

2025-05-01 11:28:23 It defines US access to Ukrainian resources and establishes no tariffs on those resources.

2025-05-01 11:29:21 They agreed not to tariff resources shipped to the US as part of the deal. Agreeing to gain access to resources is a trade agreement on its own, and then agreeing not to tariff them is a trade agreement in a super strict sense.

2025-05-01 11:37:53 Trade means exchange of goods and services across the borders. They agreed on preferential access for the US to the Ukrainian resources. That makes it a trade deal. Moreover, it discuss the intention of not having tariffs on those resources, which is a strict trade provision. Being a mineral deal, it doesn't mean it cannot ALSO be a trade deal. It is both.

2025-05-01 11:40:00 Having said that, I think FV is 80c, because of uncertainty about Polymarket's clarification. So I'm out. Good luck!

2025-05-01 11:47:46 Not a scam. A scam is when you cheat. Here, you have a very strict definition of what a trade agreement is. On the other hand, I think any deal that makes a deal about trade activities should count. And I think my flexibility is more appropriate here. And it's fine we disagree. But it's not a scam. I've just lost $5k on Brazil tariff "bond," because someone found out Feb 10 exemption three months later. I accepted my defeat. Here, people forgot to consider the potential provision of the Ukrainian deal. Bam.

2025-05-01 11:50:25 I don't think it's wise to trade based on the unwritten assumption that the market creator had. I do agree with you - the intention seemed to be about deals that would cancel imposed tariffs. But if that is to be enforcable, that needs to be written in the rules. It wasn't. And so the market is about any trade deal, not just tariff-cancelling deal. There's literally nothing that prevents Polymarket from creating a market that says: "Will Trump strike a deal cancelling any of his tariffs?"

2025-05-01 11:59:33 I'd say it's an assumption that the whole deal has to be focused on the strict definition of trade to qualify. I do not make such an assumption, and that's the difference. That's also a difference between a disagreement and a scam. I really try not to scam :) (Once I did try to rule cuck though.)

2025-05-01 17:22:36 Why didn’t you propose? Next time, write to me if you like, i can support 🙂

2025-05-01 18:53:38 Rubio is the interim head. So Waltz is out. And in theory, he might not get confirmed. News say he's leaving the current office.

2025-05-01 19:00:16 To be moved, he'd need to be confirmed. Senate might reject him. In the meantime, he's no longer in his job. Rubio is the interim head.

2025-05-06 09:28:24 The poll of the Poles.

2025-05-08 21:20:35 thank you

2025-05-09 08:21:45 AtlasIntel poll neither does capture the apartment scandal, nor can we assume it's better than the Polish polls that have consistently proven to be accurate.

2025-05-09 16:15:48 I checked only the last presidential and parliamentary elections 🙂 And they were surprisingly accurate. Ten years ago from your example feels like a long time ago for our purposes.

2025-05-09 16:16:10 It was still unfolding and landing to my understanding.

2025-05-09 20:08:58 BBC: India says 300-400 drones attacked and they brought down “a number” of them. Conclusion: Some, if not most, wasn’t intercepted. [link removed]

2025-05-09 20:12:08 It was clarified that drones that don’t get intercepted are enough for Y.

2025-05-09 21:02:42 Consensus that only some of the drones were shot down is there. Washington Post: On Friday, Pakistan’s military said it had shot down a total of 77 drones in the conflict, while India’s Defense Ministry said Pakistan targeted 36 locations, including civilian infrastructure, with up to 400 drones - many of which it claimed to have shot down. India admitted that some of its soldiers had been killed, without providing further details. [link removed] Al-Jazeera: Indian officials say a drone strike has targeted the city of Ferozepur in Punjab state. [link removed] BBC: According to Indian military official Vyomika Singh, India’s armed forces brought down “a number” of these drones. [link removed]

2025-05-09 21:10:57 The last market resolved Y based on a drone attack. As long as a single drone is not intersected, it counts toward Y. With 300-400 drones flying in, do you really believe not a single one got through? If a drone gets intercepted, it doesn't count. If it gets through, it counts.

2025-05-09 21:36:55 Gotta sleep, no time to track how this develops. But some drones must've hit, so I think it should go Y. Good luck!

2025-05-12 15:36:05 No way there’s a Germany specific deal. And if you want to bet on an EU deal, you have a bracket for that 👍

2025-05-12 19:41:21 I did. If there's a deal between Germany, Austria, and the US, that will count. That's what the clause stipulates. But an EU-deal has its own bracket, and it was clarified in the past for the tariff markets that Germany or France-specific deals do not count for the EU bracket.

2025-05-12 19:48:53 Did i sell too soon?

2025-05-12 21:04:43 Let’s see! 🙂 I think it could go either way.

2025-05-12 22:34:22 Confiscated BTC in a reserve are enough on Polymarket.

2025-05-12 22:40:44 Poly rules talk about confiscation in a very different way than K-shi. Here, they’re saying that an action of confiscating will not count. The confiscated BTC need to be moved to an actual reserve. That’s all. There’s nothing about confiscated BTC not counting when in a reserve. And anyway, some of the BTC they have were part of settlements, not confiscation, so doesn’t matter in the end all too much.

2025-05-13 04:54:10 Very poor rules, but they are as they are, so this is a clear Y.

2025-05-13 08:11:15 No, it doesn’t. There’s a separate bracket for the EU. And we had a clarification in the same situation in a tariff market that the EU doesn’t count for Germany and France. The clause that apex quotes is there in case of a multi-country deal, not in case of an EU deal.

2025-05-13 12:21:40 0x70b918c1d5b4bb7ab90696a9cadf886fd9a374ce

2025-05-13 17:20:37 I strongly disagree. The grammar implies otherwise. We have “ Note that the US government confiscating Bitcoin does not count as holding Bitcoin reserves” instead of “Note that Bitcoin confiscated by the US Government does not count even if put in a reserve.” Also, this market is not about USG purchasing BTC but about a creation of the reserve. It shouldn’t matter where the BTC comes from, even if K-shi made that part of their market. Here, the clause is to defend from rule cucking on Day 1 of the market.

2025-05-14 16:23:18 No, it wouldn't. Read below.

2025-05-15 06:02:08 Here, you have hundreds of analysts, some of which are paid much much better than anyone at Unibet. Draw your own conclusions.

2025-05-15 16:11:55 It is free money, unless Polymarket or UMA decide to interpret the rules differently than last time.

2025-05-15 17:53:54 There we go! Nawrocki finally catching up.

2025-05-17 11:12:40 They have no clue 😅

2025-05-22 06:45:33 Just wait for more polls to come out. I think they will mostly show Nawrocki in the lead. I’ll keep my alpha to myself though 😘

2025-05-25 15:37:55 I’m curious of the upcoming polls. Exciting 😇 I hope T wins, though at this price, N is the one to buy.

2025-05-26 09:25:17 Shouldn’t matter for now anymore, as they can weigh new polls by R1 results.

2025-05-26 09:29:11 OGB was the most accurate pollster in Round 1. They’ve just released a poll with N+2.6. That’s a sizeable lead. We also have IBRIS, which did very poorly in R1 underestimating the right wing candidates by 14.2pp in their final poll (sic), which has T+0.8. Draw your own conclusions. Things will shift a lot once we get a new AtlasIntel poll.

2025-05-26 09:33:12 OGB had average error of only 0.6pp for the 7 top candidates. The second best was AtlasIntel with 1.2pp average error. IBRIS had 2.0 average error, which is quite a lot.

2025-05-26 09:34:42 Yeah, as i mentioned earlier, i hope Trzaskowski will win. But the prices seem so off that it i am forced to bet on Nawrocki. That’s the +EV play right now.

2025-05-26 09:37:20 It’s mostly CATI from what i understand (computer-assisted telephone interviews).

2025-05-26 09:42:57 But what about Mentzen? Most of his voters will vote Nawrocki, though a lot will stay home too. I don’t see any major shifts. Do you?

2025-05-26 10:38:26 Yeah, the polls will tell us how much the debate and the conversations with Mentzen changed. Trump/Harris debate didn’t change much, though Trump did much better.

2025-05-26 10:39:58 I think 1/3 of both Mentzen and Braun voters will stay home. Maybe 80% of Mentzen will vote Nawrocki, and 98% of Braun.

2025-05-28 08:25:08 Let’s go!!!

2025-05-29 00:12:54 I flipped 😇 Things have shifted 👍

2025-05-29 19:37:47 Similar to Vatican that went N. The designer says that it's a military uniform with a formal touch. Nothing new.

2025-05-29 19:39:00 Similar to Vatican that went N. The designer says that it's a military uniform with a formal touch. Nothing new. German press said it's not a suit. Let's have a good old UMA fight.

2025-05-29 20:09:22 You wanna see a suit, look at the picture of the market.

2025-05-29 23:59:47 Nice rule cucking attempt. But not this time.

2025-05-30 14:41:18 It's only implied through the context, unfortunately.

2025-06-05 21:33:48 I doubt we will see solid effects any time soon.

2025-06-06 11:59:48 Well, at the end what matters more is whether you’re placing a winning bet or not.

2025-06-07 21:17:44 The silence of the 'no' side is delightful.

2025-06-07 22:03:53 What's crazy about it? :)

2025-06-07 22:34:58 Oh, I’m rooting for Greta. I am. And I’m here to make money, so…

2025-06-07 22:49:17 Aren't we too nice to people? :D

2025-06-08 00:30:42 hello

2025-06-08 12:12:12 Are you for real?

2025-06-08 12:13:42 Yes sir 👌

2025-06-08 16:23:07 I guess some hurricane 🌀 could pick up and blow the IDF into Gaza 🤪

2025-06-09 13:41:27 It is free money. There's plenty of free money at Poly.

2025-06-13 14:37:06 IDF confirms Iran shooting drones into Israel. We have plenty of footage of drones either being shot in Israel, or their debris landing in Israel. There's no reporting of any drones getting shot out of Syria/Iraq. Media are reporting on Iran launching drones. We know Israel shot drones over Israel, and we see them being shot down in Israel. That's it. We do not need any confirmation from Iran, b/c we have credible reporting, which is sufficient. Done.

2025-06-13 14:42:47 We have plenty of videos of interceptions over Israeli towns.

2025-06-18 20:05:58 For those not trained in formal logic. The context for the use of "judge" as a pluralization doesn't matter. So if Powell uses a pluralization of "judge" - then it won’t matter when and how he says it. However, he didn’t pluralize the word “judge,” so we cannot even start thinking about the context. He used “judges” as a verb, and the rules are clear that such a form shall not count. It’s done.

2025-06-18 20:12:01 The rules say that other forms will not count, meaning 3rd person verbal form won't count. Had he pluralized "judge," it would count regardless of the context. But he didn't. Simple.

2025-06-18 21:33:15 2% quite bullish

2025-06-19 06:35:57 Seriously, the rules were clear.

2025-06-23 14:31:27 Mysterious are the pathways of a notorious cat

2025-06-23 21:12:09 [link removed] The Qatari Deputy Chief of Staff for Joint Operations, Shayiq Misfer Al-Hajri, said: “One missile fell on Al-Udeid Base without causing any casualties.”

2025-06-23 21:15:35 Maj. Gen. Shayeq Al Hajri told reporters that seven missiles were fired from Iran and all were intercepted over the water between the two countries by Qatari air defenses. Iran then fired 12 more missiles and 11 were intercepted over Qatari territory, but one hit the U.S. base, Al Hajri said. [link removed]

2025-06-23 22:40:08 Why lose $1.5k?

2025-06-23 22:42:39 I did, and? One wasn't intercepted and hit the base, as per different Qatari official statements.

2025-06-23 22:42:55 “There were no losses there. All the missiles that were launched, thanks to God, by our available systems, were all shot down except for one missile, as I mentioned, which fell in the Al Udeid Air Base,” he added. [link removed]

2025-06-23 22:57:36 Relevant sources:

2025-06-23 22:57:43 “There were no losses there. All the missiles that were launched, thanks to God, by our available systems, were all shot down except for one missile, as I mentioned, which fell in the Al Udeid Air Base,” he added. [link removed]

2025-06-23 22:57:51 “Maj. Gen. Shayeq Al Hajri told reporters that seven missiles were fired from Iran and all were intercepted over the water between the two countries by Qatari air defenses. Iran then fired 12 more missiles and 11 were intercepted over Qatari territory, but one hit the U.S. base, Al Hajri said.” [link removed]

2025-06-23 22:59:48 “Qatar confirmed that Iran fired 19 missiles in total, but only one hit Al Udeid Air Base. The strike caused no casualties, and the country remains “completely stable.”” [link removed]

2025-06-23 22:59:53 “A total of 14 Iranian missiles were intercepted by Qatari air defenses, according to a source familiar with the matter. One missile struck a building near the Al Udeid base, but there were no casualties and no damage inflicted to military infrastructure, the source said.” [link removed]

2025-06-23 23:00:27 If it wasn't shot down, it wasn't intercepted.

2025-06-23 23:01:35 “One missile fell on Al-Udeid Base without causing any casualties." [link removed]

2025-06-23 23:22:54 Four hours ago. Before the Qatari statements.

2025-06-25 13:39:04 [link removed]

2025-06-25 13:41:48 [link removed]

2025-06-26 08:06:13 He hasn’t left Iran in 30 years and even if he’s dead, this still resolves to N.

2025-06-26 09:38:36 GG

2025-06-26 10:19:34 I proposed 🙂

2025-06-26 10:27:49 Grossi: It's clear that with this type of penetrating munitions, the damage is significant - it cannot not be very significant." So, in any case, part of the potential is destroyed, according to you? - "No doubt, no doubt. And the damage is very significant."

2025-06-26 10:33:05 [link removed]

2025-06-26 10:37:09 Grossi: "We can still draw some conclusions, because it's clear that given the scale, capacity, and power of the kinetic means used, we can deduce that the centrifuges - which are rather delicate machines - have suffered greatly, if not been destroyed entirely."

2025-06-26 10:37:38 [link removed]

2025-06-26 10:37:55 Grossi: It's clear that with this type of penetrating munitions, the damage is significant - it cannot not be very significant." So, in any case, part of the potential is destroyed, according to you? - "No doubt, no doubt. And the damage is very significant."

2025-06-26 10:39:11 Grossi: "Fordow, the major underground installation everyone is talking about. It's almost like a movie scenario. We've seen images of the penetration craters from those high-penetration bombs. Obviously, we can’t assess the exact level of damage. But given the power of these weapons and the technical characteristics of a centrifuge, we already know that those centrifuges are no longer operational, because they are precision machines: they have rotors, and the vibrations alone would have completely destroyed them. There must have been significant physical damage. So, we can draw a technically fairly accurate conclusion. I know the Fordow facility. It's a network of tunnels where different types of activities took place. I can also tell you that this matches what we saw in the images we analyzed, and where the impact likely occurred." [link removed]

2025-06-26 10:44:46 CNN quoting Grossi: “Given the power of these bombs and technical characteristics of the centrifuges, we do know that they are no longer operational, simply because of the vibration, which causes considerable, important physical damage,” Grossi said. “I know the plant very well, it’s a network of tunnels with different types of activity,” Grossi said. “What we saw on the pictures corresponds more or less to the enrichment hall, that’s what’s been hit.” [link removed]

2025-06-26 10:51:28 No proof needed. Official statements of non-functionality and damage to the centrifuges from IAEA are enough.

2025-06-26 10:55:10 Alex, get out when you can. This is clearly going Yes. We don't need them to agree. Either one confirming damage is enough.

2025-06-26 10:55:52 Listen to the guy who made $1m on this site.

2025-06-26 10:56:33 Or don't, and we take your money :D Win-win either way.

2025-06-26 11:13:14 Grossi, the head of IAEA: "" There’s rubble - it’s no longer an operational installation." "But given the power of these weapons and the technical characteristics of a centrifuge, we already know that those centrifuges are no longer operational, because they are highly precise machines: they have rotors, and the vibrations completely destroyed them."

2025-06-26 11:15:38 :D

2025-06-26 11:55:54 Just got to wait a little :)

2025-06-26 14:43:46 Damn, yes is cooked 🥶

2025-06-30 21:23:55 Whether you like it or not, it 100% goes No. It was decided by Uma that given the unclear rules, he needs to wear a proper western suit, which he didn’t. You might disagree, i might disagree, but no point losing money over it.

2025-06-30 21:54:56 Thanks for trying to explain the situation.

2025-07-03 02:08:15 Hmm

2025-07-03 21:05:46 They agree to talk. Wake up.

2025-07-03 21:33:59 They're simplifying. Don't fall for it. The Israeli negotiation delegation will come to Qatar earliest on the weekend.

2025-07-03 23:02:55 I just published an article unpacking the dynamics behind the Polymarket dispute over Zelensky’s suit. Did he actually wear one? And more importantly --- why is the market resolving to No despite what some headlines say? If you’re curious about how it all unfolded - from the Vatican to Berlin to the NATO Summit --- and want to understand how oracles, incentives, and trader psychology shaped the outcome, take a look: [link removed]

2025-07-03 23:26:39 Curious why this is going no? Check my substack: [link removed]

2025-07-03 23:28:51 Yeah, it's all quite twisted. Polymarket should've just clarified what they wanted much earlier on.

2025-07-03 23:34:40 Thanks, I appreciate the feedback :)

2025-07-03 23:55:30 Wow, so nice to hear from a reasonable Yes holder. Thanks!

2025-07-04 00:06:01 My Substack explaining this market: [link removed]

2025-07-04 07:45:13 My Substack article explaining the dynamics and history of this market: [link removed]

2025-07-04 08:05:23 Some people actually did 🙂 Thanks!

2025-07-04 08:18:30 You’re misreading the situation. They’re waiting for a Hamas to give a positive answer on the framework. They would then engage in proximity talks in Qatar to see if they can agree on the details. If not, no ceasefire.

2025-07-04 08:19:59 The Iranian credit market has very different rules. An announcement by a mediator was enough. And we actually had a ceasefire. Here, upon an initial framework agreement, they’ll start talking about the ceasefire conditions.

2025-07-04 09:55:54 Yes, we need an official ceasefire agreement with a decision to halt military activity from a certain date. None of this is happening today. Next week earliest.

2025-07-04 09:58:05 Don’t cry that it’s a scam when we’ve already explained you that what they might agree on today is a framework agreement, which opens proximity talks to negotiate the details of a potential ceasefire. Ain’t no way this goes Yes.

2025-07-04 10:10:05 Who told you that? It’s a misinterpretation shared by some media outlets. Just read a little more about it.

2025-07-04 10:41:47 Official. They need to meet in Qatar first to negotiate for that to happen.

2025-07-04 10:43:45 The agreement for a 60-day ceasefire can be reached after they negotiate in Qatar. What’s on the table right now is Witkoff’s framework agreement which sets the boundaries for the negotiation of the 60-day ceasefire. That’s what Hamas is considering agreeing to today.

2025-07-04 10:47:32 But the main reason for me writing is compassion to people who don’t underhand the context and bet on wrong headlines. I prefer to win through predicting, not understanding the rules better.

2025-07-04 13:32:31 If a ceasefire is agreed today, I will gladly lose my money. The thing is that the chances of that are below 1%. They haven't agreed on IDF withdrawal lines, humanitarian aid flows, number of Palestinian prisoners to be released, which hostages are to be released, etc. What they are currently about to agree on is a framework agreement, outlining the major lines of a potential ceasefire. If they agree on that, Israel will send a delegation to Qatar to negotiate the ceasefire with Hamas. On May 5, 2025, Hamas also agreed to a framework agreement, but then the ceasefire failed due to lack of agreement about the specifics, and the ceasefire fell through on May 9. I don't know what will happen during the likely upcoming negotiations in Qatar, but there are a few steps ahead before any actual formal ceasefire agreement is reached.

2025-07-04 13:47:29 Even in the article you quote it says that if Hamas gives a positive response to the Witkoff's outline, they'll meet to negotiate the agreement, and that the diplomats expect some trouble there. Important, this trouble is not about the ending of the war agreement that would be negotiated during the 2-month ceasefire. The trouble is about the 60-day ceasefire agreement itself.

2025-07-04 14:12:29 [link removed]

2025-07-04 14:18:08 The January ceasefire market resolved only after the Israeli cabinet signed it off, and it had exactly the same rules. The cabinet sign-off was uncertain until the very end, causing the markets to fluctuate considerably. The ceasefire was announced on Jan 15, but signed off officially on Jan 17 only. Here, we also need an official ceasefire agreement. Next week at the earliest. [link removed]

2025-07-04 14:19:11 I didn't say the number wasn't agreed. Read carefully. I said it wasn't agreed which hostages would be released. It's not trivial. But the other details are more important, anyway.

2025-07-04 14:22:31 The deal might potentially fall through because of Smotrich et al., just like we weren't sure in Jan if it would go through at the end. As of now, we have no official agreement from Israel on anything.

2025-07-04 14:38:45 Wow, I am impressed that you are actually taking feedback in and selling. Congratulations. Most people here are incapable of that. This is a bet that basically has no chance for a Yes, because there's no way on earth this deal gets officially approved by both sides today. And for all we know, it may fall through during the negotiations in Qatar, given that they start.

2025-07-04 14:44:42 There was also an announcement market that resolved Yes: https://polymarket.com/event/israel-announces-ceasefire-by-thursday But it had different rules. For this market here, just like in January 31 market, we need an official agreement, not an announcement of it. The funny thing is that we actually need an official announcement of an official agreement, which might be confusing to people. The announcement markets, on the other hand, do not require official agreements... Official announcements suffice for such markets, regardless whether a deal is really there or not.

2025-07-04 14:47:59 Likewise 🙂 And btw you were indeed right about the tariff market. The difference was though, that back there it was a contentious market, and no one knew which interpretation was really the correct one. Here, it's different, because No is simply a bond.

2025-07-04 14:52:02 [link removed] My Substack explaining why this market will go No regardless of whether Zelensky's attire is technically a suit.

2025-07-04 18:48:37 That's exactly what we've been saying. The positive response will help advance reaching the ceasefire deal.

2025-07-04 18:48:59 Have you read this Tweet? :D

2025-07-04 19:06:21 You have little reading comprehension, unfortunately. What this means is that we need an official agreement, whether that's confirmed by the sides, or by media consensus. However, we are nowhere close to an official agreement. Maybe next week.

2025-07-04 21:00:12 i got some fills at 79.5 :D

2025-07-04 21:01:05 NYT: Hamas Says It Is Ready to Negotiate Truce Proposal It was not immediately clear whether the group was demanding any significant changes to the plan for a 60-day truce, hostage-for-prisoner swaps and talks on a permanent end to the Gaza war.

2025-07-04 21:01:34 I've told you hours ago. Only Analisa listened and sold his Y. Peace be upon his soul.

2025-07-06 16:28:56 Done!

2025-07-06 16:29:07 I am doing my best to be fair in my comments :)

2025-07-06 16:29:31 And yeah, maybe not the best phrase to use ;)

2025-07-06 16:30:19 Yeah, you had to be there at the right time.

2025-07-07 20:23:36 I love UMA

2025-07-08 16:40:38 SCOOP: Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and Syrian President Al-Sharaa are expected to meet in Washington DC ahead of the UN General Assembly in September, a Syrian source close to President Al-Sharaa tells @i24NEWS_EN. The Syrian source stated that during the meeting, which will take place at the White House, Netanyahu and Al-Sharaa will sign a security agreement, under the patronage of U.S. President Trump. This will be the first step towards a peace and normalization agreement between the two countries, according to the source.\

2025-07-09 15:42:17 Me

2025-07-09 23:42:30 Of what?

2025-07-10 16:12:40 Yeah, sold everything now.

2025-07-12 22:43:03 That i don’t know, but definitely less full of myself 😜

2025-07-14 15:10:15 Is it a good movie?

2025-07-14 15:32:55 Cool, I’ll watch it then 👍

2025-07-23 12:05:46 Come on, who else could’ve done it? And there is plenty of reporting.

2025-07-27 14:49:50 How many times must a man look up, before he can see the sky?

2025-07-28 12:55:39 OK.

2025-07-31 00:26:48 Eternity got attacked again after the market's creation. This market should easily resolve Yes.

2025-07-31 00:27:02 “Two security sources said on Wednesday that the vessel was attacked again on Tuesday night, forcing the crew to jump into the water.” [link removed] “The Liberian-flagged, Greek-owned Eternity C sank on July 9, 2025, after sustaining two days of drone and missile fire.” [link removed] “On July 7, the vessel was attacked three times by as many as eight boats firing small arms and RPGs, resulting in three dead, two injured, significant engine room damage and loss of propulsion, EUNAVFOR Operation Aspides and Vanguard Tech reported. Houthi boats returned for a fourth attack on July 8, and the incident is ongoing.” [link removed] “On July 8, Houthi boats returned to destroy the lifeboats, stranding the crew as the vessel sank. Six survivors were kidnapped.” [link removed]

2025-07-31 00:38:52 And then it was attacked again AFTER the market was created. The market was created July 8, 2am, and then attacked again on the night of July 8/9, local time, meaning afternoon July 8, EST. Long after market's creation.

2025-07-31 01:02:48 I proposed. Somehow people seem to have missed that Houthis attacked Eternity again after the market got created. Many credible sources describe them coming back on the night of July 8 and destroying the lifeboats and kidnapping more crew members.

2025-07-31 01:37:42 The lifeboats are on the ship. And you cannot really kidnap crew members from the ship without taking control of it, which the rules allow too. And many sources talk about continued attacks on July 8. This is lost cause, really.

2025-07-31 02:22:50 Write me next time 😇 _rozi_ on Discord

2025-07-31 02:29:05 The market got created ever earlier. I mixed up time zones. It was created on July 7, 6:30pm, EST.

2025-07-31 02:29:46 So even the morning attack from July 8, local time, counts in.

2025-07-31 02:30:43 Multiple sources describing attacks on July 8. Why to waste more money?

2025-07-31 02:31:24 The boat sank July 9. And indeed there are no reports of attacks on July 9. But plenty for July 8.

2025-07-31 12:17:38 Not true, The Guardian quotes its own two security sources when reporting a new attack on July 8.

2025-08-01 04:39:31 Yes.

2025-08-01 11:03:26 Well, I've made more money on that market than your entire PNL :P

2025-08-01 11:12:02 Didn't they strike already?

2025-08-01 14:52:15 Yes. Untap 'Holders' if you want to see all of them.

2025-08-04 10:44:38 I am happy to take the $250. I've just re-proposed.

2025-08-04 10:46:27 I've just re-proposed. 1) A feature that performs similar function to Vine has been launched, check. 2) Elon called it "AI Vine," check. 3) It is now broadly accessible to paid subscribers of Grok, check. 4) Since there's no platform given that it was relaunched as a feature, the resolution source becomes Elon Musk and X, which is done, check. If someone wants to dispute, go ahead, I'll gladly cash in $250 from a dispute.

2025-08-04 10:53:28 Even the Vine founder tweeted that it is branded as both Imagine and Vine. I cannot paste the link for some reason. But check replies from Rus on X.

2025-08-28 13:49:17 Why? :)

2025-09-07 10:41:15 Getting a ride in a Tesla Robotaxi is a coveted invitation. Until today, Tesla had only allowed a handful of influencers, fans and executives to access the rideshare service. Starting September 4th, however, anyone can download the Tesla Robotaxi app, create an account (and unironically, check a box that says you’re human) and join a waitlist to ride. A waitlist is typical, as autonomous rideshare companies need to balance ridership with available vehicles, so they build a customer list as they build out their fleets.

2025-09-07 10:41:28 Forbes

2025-09-07 10:43:01 Given that anyone can sign up, it’s no longer beta testers, or invite only. It’s hard to get because of few cars only, but it is available to the public. The fact that someone forgot to delete some sub page with an invite only phrase doesn’t change that.

2025-09-07 13:47:25 Domer pump over?

2025-09-21 08:02:27 [link removed]

2026-04-19 20:37:30 Exciting 😉

2026-04-21 07:40:50 May the Gates of Hormuz open! 🔥

2026-04-23 14:18:00 It looks like a No.

2026-04-27 17:05:20 It looks like a Yes 👍

2026-05-01 07:54:20 Despite cover-ups, there’s media consensus of the two CIA agents being actively involved in a few-day raid on a drug lab in Mexico. We even have pictures of the CIA agents carrying Mexican uniforms and guns.

2026-05-01 07:58:16 Despite cover-ups, there’s media consensus of the two CIA agents being actively involved in a few-day raid on a drug lab in Mexico. We even have pictures of the CIA agents carrying Mexican uniforms and guns.

2026-05-01 08:44:07 If they are not on the picture, that’s fair to point out. Still, all the major outlets confirm they participated in the raid, which clearly counts.

2026-05-05 14:37:06 You can buy more now 😉

2026-05-27 04:53:51 Agreed 👍

2026-06-01 20:24:19 Finally!

2026-06-06 19:42:38 I talked to Rebecca today hehe

2026-06-07 05:15:54 That she thought she had a chance.

2026-06-15 17:14:02 This rule cuck won’t work.

2026-07-06 23:07:37 The tears have to be clearly visible. This is not the case 🥲

2026-07-29 15:00:39 Hello

2026-07-30 08:37:04 No i didn’t. He even bought more after i got in.

2026-07-30 08:37:11 Hello 👋

2026-08-19 06:44:57 gm

Account Information

Blockchain trace (12)

Stats

Biggest wins & losses

Biggest wins

Biggest losses

Open positions (5+)

Closed positions (5+)

Recent activity (5+)

Recent trades (1927)

Comments