Polymarkethttps://polymarket.com/event/will-marine-le-pen-win-her-appeal-to-lift-ineligibility-ban
https://polymarket.com/event/will-marine-le-pen-win-her-appeal-to-lift-ineligibility-ban
Mirza参与话题 2消息总数 26
该用户的聊天记录定位。
聊天记录
共 26 条，显示第 1-26 条
PredictNo, read the rules
No, read the rules
Thats crazy
Thats crazy
"iran is not in position to breakout to a bomb", wow i missed this one, full porting Y now.
"iran is not in position to breakout to a bomb", wow i missed this one, full porting Y now.
bm kelly 60 80
bm kelly 60 80
is that in the signed mou though?
is that in the signed mou though?
on this, i think im missing something about the rules? i just deposited $500 and bet on a world cup game and won, where the issue? of course if you win your position will be worth more than 500? or isn't that allowed?
on this, i think im missing something about the rules? i just deposited $500 and bet on a world cup game and won, where the issue? of course if you win your position will be worth more than 500? or isn't that allowed?
update on this for you to look further -> when i buy in smaller size (~$100) it does go through, but on higher size (~$500) it gives me error. so for a $500 position that i wanted, i just did 5 $100 buys. very bad UX.
update on this for you to look further -> when i buy in smaller size (~$100) it does go through, but on higher size (~$500) it gives me error. so for a $500 position that i wanted, i just did 5 $100 buys. very bad UX.
constantly getting this error: "combo failed, getting a new price..." while it does show the odds and payouts before submitting and getting the error (indicating that there is an actual qoute but cant execute on it?)
constantly getting this error: "combo failed, getting a new price..." while it does show the odds and payouts before submitting and getting the error (indicating that there is an actual qoute but cant execute on it?)
To what
To what
Any updates on the internet blackout market?
Any updates on the internet blackout market?
skill issue
skill issue
bro just pulled a new sentence for the rules out of his ass, impressive
bro just pulled a new sentence for the rules out of his ass, impressive
very strong counter argument 👏 i think im switching p4
very strong counter argument 👏 i think im switching p4
so what?
so what?
second paragraph just provides a handful of examples, like this and that would also qualify based on the main rule in the first paragraph. if it was written like, **a referendum concerning the province’s potential secession is defined as A,B,C.** , then you would be correct here, but thats not the case.
second paragraph just provides a handful of examples, like this and that would also qualify based on the main rule in the first paragraph. if it was written like, **a referendum concerning the province’s potential secession is defined as A,B,C.** , then you would be correct here, but thats not the case.
That distinction doesn’t defeat the rule. The market says “concerning the province’s potential secession”, not “directly deciding secession.” a referendum on whether to begin the legal process for a binding separation referendum is still about potential secession. It would be absurd to say a vote whose ballot text explicitly says “whether or not Alberta should separate from Canada” is not concerning secession.
That distinction doesn’t defeat the rule. The market says “concerning the province’s potential secession”, not “directly deciding secession.” a referendum on whether to begin the legal process for a binding separation referendum is still about potential secession. It would be absurd to say a vote whose ballot text explicitly says “whether or not Alberta should separate from Canada” is not concerning secession.
i kind of don't, i can't see the counter argument here, maybe im a retard, but for me it is very obvious
i kind of don't, i can't see the counter argument here, maybe im a retard, but for me it is very obvious
that, very cleanly seems concerning to potential secsession
that, very cleanly seems concerning to potential secsession
im not native so i just looked up the definition to be sure. so are you saying that a vote to have a referendum on seperation is not "about," "regarding," or "in reference to" potential secession from Canada? like its unrelated?
im not native so i just looked up the definition to be sure. so are you saying that a vote to have a referendum on seperation is not "about," "regarding," or "in reference to" potential secession from Canada? like its unrelated?
obviously yes?
obviously yes?
second paragraph just provides some examples, not all the possible ways.
second paragraph just provides some examples, not all the possible ways.
thats still "concerning the province’s potential secession"
thats still "concerning the province’s potential secession"
wrong language ser
wrong language ser
idk i miss the bombs already
idk i miss the bombs already
ahle koja?
ahle koja?