2026-06-20 · Polymarket · 1800 条相关讨论
does anyone here seriously think that US agreed that Iran can keep its current status quo if the current status quo is enriching Uranium?
does anyone here seriously think that US agreed that Iran can keep its current status quo if the current status quo is enriching Uranium?
Yeah. Otherwise they'd have said "pause enrichment". It's just not worth the fight with the Iranians over the pride of their nation (or whatever they call it) when (a) most of it is rubble and (b) if there's a hidden facility that wasn't bombed it's, well, hidden.
Yeah. Otherwise they'd have said "pause enrichment". It's just not worth the fight with the Iranians over the pride of their nation (or whatever they call it) when (a) most of it is rubble and (b) if there's a hidden facility that wasn't bombed it's, well, hidden.
it's not a very complex logical jump i am really just confused as to why N is so insistent here... >they agreed to status quo PUBLICLY and FOR THE PERIOD OF NEGOTIATIONS >rules don't require permanence >iran gov, US gov, IAEA, nabavian, consensus of credible reporting, all confirm that current state (and as such the "status quo") is no enrichment what is going on?
it's not a very complex logical jump i am really just confused as to why N is so insistent here... >they agreed to status quo PUBLICLY and FOR THE PERIOD OF NEGOTIATIONS >rules don't require permanence >iran gov, US gov, IAEA, nabavian, consensus of credible reporting, all confirm that current state (and as such the "status quo") is no enrichment what is going on?
Both can be N by June 30, markets have different rules and status quo is open to interpretation on purpose, both markets can resolve and most probably resolve to no since it is not in the interest of the sides to interpret this term in a negative way to their own merit
Both can be N by June 30, markets have different rules and status quo is open to interpretation on purpose, both markets can resolve and most probably resolve to no since it is not in the interest of the sides to interpret this term in a negative way to their own merit
imagine they dont clarify and just clear books :ICANT:
imagine they dont clarify and just clear books :ICANT:
oh if poly is going to clarify id say 80% chance it goes "not enough yet"
oh if poly is going to clarify id say 80% chance it goes "not enough yet"
thanks for the financial advice Domer
thanks for the financial advice Domer
this is the type of market where unless its easy and straight forward to say yes, they're very likely to go no. the topic is too big, the evidence is too vague. just my two cents. i think the yes case is too speculative personally.
this is the type of market where unless its easy and straight forward to say yes, they're very likely to go no. the topic is too big, the evidence is too vague. just my two cents. i think the yes case is too speculative personally.
thanks, just dumped appreciate the take
thanks, just dumped appreciate the take
wow holy discount
wow holy discount
you think Polymarket just completely ignores this media consensus?
you think Polymarket just completely ignores this media consensus?
<@941405798096076880>
<@941405798096076880>
if you showed this to a neutral judge who was trying to decide this market, they would think you are on the N side.
if you showed this to a neutral judge who was trying to decide this market, they would think you are on the N side.
Deep down denizz knows resolving YES is a scam
Deep down denizz knows resolving YES is a scam
What is Iran's current enrichment status? AP News: "...Tehran is no longer enriching uranium at any site in the country" https://apnews.com/article/iran-nuclear-enrichment-c0079c38746a896e2967a9a9cc2799d5 IEAE: "Iran isn't actively enriching uranium, UN nuclear chief tells AP" https://apnews.com/article/iran-nuclear-program-grossi-uranium-543ad3503ece5de766e08123f6e71f9c
What is Iran's current enrichment status? AP News: "...Tehran is no longer enriching uranium at any site in the country" https://apnews.com/article/iran-nuclear-enrichment-c0079c38746a896e2967a9a9cc2799d5 IEAE: "Iran isn't actively enriching uranium, UN nuclear chief tells AP" https://apnews.com/article/iran-nuclear-program-grossi-uranium-543ad3503ece5de766e08123f6e71f9c
Well it's technically Y
Well it's technically Y
Because you like money?!
Because you like money?!
I mean we have a fundamental disagreement here, because I think words like "Maintain" and "Freezing" and "Status Quo" supports No. I do understand the argument that this word is actually some sort of implicit code word for 0 enrichment, but that is not explicit at all. And it is not explicit on purpose. Whether that purpose is political or logistical or bc they are secretly enriching or whatever is really beside the point. Iran hasn't agreed to ending enrichment yet.
I mean we have a fundamental disagreement here, because I think words like "Maintain" and "Freezing" and "Status Quo" supports No. I do understand the argument that this word is actually some sort of implicit code word for 0 enrichment, but that is not explicit at all. And it is not explicit on purpose. Whether that purpose is political or logistical or bc they are secretly enriching or whatever is really beside the point. Iran hasn't agreed to ending enrichment yet.
Both sides are reasonable
Both sides are reasonable
Clarif prediction: > Per the rules, "this market will resolve to "Yes" if Iran publicly agrees to end all enrichment of uranium." The clause in the signed memorandum of understanding published on June 17, stating that "the Islamic Republic will maintain the current status quo of its nuclear program" does not qualify.
Clarif prediction: > Per the rules, "this market will resolve to "Yes" if Iran publicly agrees to end all enrichment of uranium." The clause in the signed memorandum of understanding published on June 17, stating that "the Islamic Republic will maintain the current status quo of its nuclear program" does not qualify.