2026-06-08 · Kalshi · 15 条相关讨论
Let's just add "If a consensus of credible reporting indicates the underlying unambiguously occured, Kalshi has the right to resolve 'Yes'"
Let's just add "If a consensus of credible reporting indicates the underlying unambiguously occured, Kalshi has the right to resolve 'Yes'"
Highly subjective!
Highly subjective!
Definitely none!
Definitely none!
<person> was subjectively used!
<person> was subjectively used!
yea but it was about trump saying it, i think the contract should just simply about if person was there via picture or video and then secondary evidence for resolution can be the source agency news articles or verified insta posts
yea but it was about trump saying it, i think the contract should just simply about if person was there via picture or video and then secondary evidence for resolution can be the source agency news articles or verified insta posts
<@277656076147752970> care to give a brief summary?
<@277656076147752970> care to give a brief summary?
In DMs yeah
In DMs yeah
You gotta add the opposite too, "if a consensus of credible reporting indicates the underlying did not occur, kalshi has the right to resolve N even if there's source agencies erroneously reporting Y". Otherwise without that rule I still argue Spike Y
You gotta add the opposite too, "if a consensus of credible reporting indicates the underlying did not occur, kalshi has the right to resolve N even if there's source agencies erroneously reporting Y". Otherwise without that rule I still argue Spike Y
yeah
yeah
But yes we need better rules so we can understand how these get determined
But yes we need better rules so we can understand how these get determined
I think correct thing to do here is res N, refund Y, rewrite rules
I think correct thing to do here is res N, refund Y, rewrite rules
but ressing Y would be so asinine
but ressing Y would be so asinine
and against their interest
and against their interest
I can agree with that
I can agree with that
I just think it can be as broad as “Any and all evidence for presence of <person> at <event> can be used for resolution so long as source is credible.” And then we can battle out what’s fake and what’s real
I just think it can be as broad as “Any and all evidence for presence of <person> at <event> can be used for resolution so long as source is credible.” And then we can battle out what’s fake and what’s real