Polymarketthankfully its a guaranteed win anyways 😄
thankfully its a guaranteed win anyways 😄
Kenny参与话题 1消息总数 44
该用户的聊天记录定位。
聊天记录
共 44 条，显示第 1-44 条ty
ty
in that case I'll just sit it out
in that case I'll just sit it out
ok good
ok good
if there's not enough liquidity, why did it show me "x to win y" on a positive ratio when I bought the shares and what happens when the time runs out on the bet and I win but no additional liquidity is added?
if there's not enough liquidity, why did it show me "x to win y" on a positive ratio when I bought the shares and what happens when the time runs out on the bet and I win but no additional liquidity is added?
what am I missing
what am I missing
I got a newbie question, how can it be that I have a position that shows up worth 850-something at 80c current rate, but when I try to sell it flips to 400€/40c?
I got a newbie question, how can it be that I have a position that shows up worth 850-something at 80c current rate, but when I try to sell it flips to 400€/40c?
At this point there's no deal and the MOU may not even get signed.
At this point there's no deal and the MOU may not even get signed.
There's no World where it makes sense that Trump says on June 17th that the World will find out if the MOU is even getting signed, and the market for June 15th resolved that there's a permanent peace deal in place. This is blatantly, objectively, clearly, unambiguously, and very bigly, N. Polymarket needs to step in here. It won't, but it should.
There's no World where it makes sense that Trump says on June 17th that the World will find out if the MOU is even getting signed, and the market for June 15th resolved that there's a permanent peace deal in place. This is blatantly, objectively, clearly, unambiguously, and very bigly, N. Polymarket needs to step in here. It won't, but it should.
Someone should tell Trump that a permanent peace deal has already been struck, according to Polymarket 🤡
Someone should tell Trump that a permanent peace deal has already been struck, according to Polymarket 🤡
<:Bidensmile:1040247925420339251>
<:Bidensmile:1040247925420339251>
Required: > language clearly signaling a lasting end to military hostilities US interpretation: > It's a memorandum of understanding. If it doesn't get done in 60 days, that's alright. We go back to bombing. Polymarket: 🤡 _that sounds about right_
Required: > language clearly signaling a lasting end to military hostilities US interpretation: > It's a memorandum of understanding. If it doesn't get done in 60 days, that's alright. We go back to bombing. Polymarket: 🤡 _that sounds about right_
Its not rhetoric, its the interpretation of what the MOU _is_. As far as the US is concerned, its not a permanent deal.
Its not rhetoric, its the interpretation of what the MOU _is_. As far as the US is concerned, its not a permanent deal.
The US president made it very clear that the US doesn't consider this a permanent deal, and they are one of the two parties to the deal, how does that not matter?
The US president made it very clear that the US doesn't consider this a permanent deal, and they are one of the two parties to the deal, how does that not matter?
> It's a memorandum of understanding. If it doesn't get done in 60 days, that's alright. We go back to bombing. If that doesn't sound like a permanent peace deal, what does, amirite?
> It's a memorandum of understanding. If it doesn't get done in 60 days, that's alright. We go back to bombing. If that doesn't sound like a permanent peace deal, what does, amirite?
There was never a permanent peace deal. Trump made it very clear the US never considered this a permanent anything.
There was never a permanent peace deal. Trump made it very clear the US never considered this a permanent anything.
Is there any mechanism by which the UMA could be overturned? Did Polymarket themselves ever intervene?
Is there any mechanism by which the UMA could be overturned? Did Polymarket themselves ever intervene?
And yet there's still large bets on N coming in
And yet there's still large bets on N coming in
Yup
Yup
I mean, they should. And it really does make little sense to bet Millions on a 99.9 thing, why risk it for peanuts.
I mean, they should. And it really does make little sense to bet Millions on a 99.9 thing, why risk it for peanuts.
Is there a mechanism to overrule the UMA vote?
Is there a mechanism to overrule the UMA vote?
I mean the vote is done, no?
I mean the vote is done, no?
How'd the rugpull work, suddenly buying N the last second?
How'd the rugpull work, suddenly buying N the last second?
People buying on 99.9 on something that in reality hasn't happened because the UMA vote is trash is really a thing to witness <:pepecry:1480174599093096560>
People buying on 99.9 on something that in reality hasn't happened because the UMA vote is trash is really a thing to witness <:pepecry:1480174599093096560>
Interesting stuff
Interesting stuff
I mean, to be fair, there never was a permanent peace deal, so as far as reality matters (which it doesn't) N kinda makes sense
I mean, to be fair, there never was a permanent peace deal, so as far as reality matters (which it doesn't) N kinda makes sense
There's actually some movement towards no, the value of my N position has gone up again by a few %. <:pepecry:1480174599093096560>
There's actually some movement towards no, the value of my N position has gone up again by a few %. <:pepecry:1480174599093096560>
https://polymarket.com/@0x59253f9a0cdf254fa4518fd3aae2541f9e0ab194-1730780830728
https://polymarket.com/@0x59253f9a0cdf254fa4518fd3aae2541f9e0ab194-1730780830728
These are levels of optimism even I can't comprehend at this point
These are levels of optimism even I can't comprehend at this point
So here we are.
So here we are.
There's clearly no permanent peace deal in place, and never has. But, too many people with voting rights are financially invested and/or functionally retarded.
There's clearly no permanent peace deal in place, and never has. But, too many people with voting rights are financially invested and/or functionally retarded.
I know the conversation is moving on, but I need to vent at the very least. "If we agree in the future, we will agree" is not a permanent peace deal, and I swear to Krishna, the only people who cannot see this are either heavily invested in this or short a few chromosomes. The market condition has never been met, its a farce. If Musk says he will sell Tesla for a poem if the poem is good enough, that doesn't mean Tesla is sold, does it? If the peace is predicated on them agreeing on things they haven't hashed out yet, then there's no feasible way this is a peace agreement, permanent or otherwise. But, I'll drop the topic. It's aight.
I know the conversation is moving on, but I need to vent at the very least. "If we agree in the future, we will agree" is not a permanent peace deal, and I swear to Krishna, the only people who cannot see this are either heavily invested in this or short a few chromosomes. The market condition has never been met, its a farce. If Musk says he will sell Tesla for a poem if the poem is good enough, that doesn't mean Tesla is sold, does it? If the peace is predicated on them agreeing on things they haven't hashed out yet, then there's no feasible way this is a peace agreement, permanent or otherwise. But, I'll drop the topic. It's aight.
Trump himself said that its not a final deal and they are ready to go bombing them if they aren't happy with how the negotiations continue. Nothing about this is a permanent peace deal.
Trump himself said that its not a final deal and they are ready to go bombing them if they aren't happy with how the negotiations continue. Nothing about this is a permanent peace deal.
I know its done and how the UMA is voting, its just pure retardation and blatantly wrong.
I know its done and how the UMA is voting, its just pure retardation and blatantly wrong.
> US x Iran permanent peace deal by...?
> US x Iran permanent peace deal by...?
My brother in Christ, "if we will agree, we will agree" is NOT a done peace deal. And a temporary ceasefire to work out a deal is explicitly not sufficient for a Y.
My brother in Christ, "if we will agree, we will agree" is NOT a done peace deal. And a temporary ceasefire to work out a deal is explicitly not sufficient for a Y.
They never agreed on a permanent peace deal. They announced a 60 day ceasefire to negotiate a deal, thats predicated on them agreeing to the details. Thats not a deal, thats a tautology, if they agree they will agree.
They never agreed on a permanent peace deal. They announced a 60 day ceasefire to negotiate a deal, thats predicated on them agreeing to the details. Thats not a deal, thats a tautology, if they agree they will agree.
If they still negotiate details, then the deal isn't done. Does this sound like there's a permanent peace deal? > No it's not final, it's a memorandum of understanding and If I don't like it, we will go back to shooting at them, dropping bombs on their head. If I don't like it, If they don't behave, we will go right back to dropping bombs right smacking in the middle of their head, cause they misbehaved for 47 years. Motivated reasoning is a strong force. If peoples money is predicated on them not understanding, even the most blatantly obvious thing becomes difficult to comprehend apparently.
If they still negotiate details, then the deal isn't done. Does this sound like there's a permanent peace deal? > No it's not final, it's a memorandum of understanding and If I don't like it, we will go back to shooting at them, dropping bombs on their head. If I don't like it, If they don't behave, we will go right back to dropping bombs right smacking in the middle of their head, cause they misbehaved for 47 years. Motivated reasoning is a strong force. If peoples money is predicated on them not understanding, even the most blatantly obvious thing becomes difficult to comprehend apparently.
> the line that specifies it needs to be final That's what "agree" means, they have to AGREE, if its not final, then they don't agree on a deal. Final agreement is just a verbose way of saying agreement. They don't agree, there's no deal. If not for motivated reasoning, a 1st grader would understand this.
> the line that specifies it needs to be final That's what "agree" means, they have to AGREE, if its not final, then they don't agree on a deal. Final agreement is just a verbose way of saying agreement. They don't agree, there's no deal. If not for motivated reasoning, a 1st grader would understand this.
What possible defense is there for this being a final peace deal at this point
What possible defense is there for this being a final peace deal at this point
What else is necessary to swing this, if not the president of the united states literally saying "this is not final"
What else is necessary to swing this, if not the president of the united states literally saying "this is not final"
Its clownish, Trump literally says this is not a final deal. The UMA is a joke if this stays Y.
Its clownish, Trump literally says this is not a final deal. The UMA is a joke if this stays Y.
How clear does it need to be that this is NOT a final peace deal
How clear does it need to be that this is NOT a final peace deal
The rule says: "Agreements that are explicitly temporary" don't count. The MOU is temporary. There's no two ways about this.
The rule says: "Agreements that are explicitly temporary" don't count. The MOU is temporary. There's no two ways about this.