PolymarketUAE invasion of Iran by Dec. 31?
UAE invasion of Iran by Dec. 31?
Jaroslav参与话题 6消息总数 228
该用户的聊天记录定位。
聊天记录
共 228 条，显示第 1-50 条Mitch McConnell or supreme leader seen publicly first?
Mitch McConnell or supreme leader seen publicly first?
Seems a good market for rewards: https://polymarket.com/event/mojtaba-khamenei-public-appearance-by/mojtaba-khamenei-seen-in-public-by-july-15-155#6l3DSFi
Seems a good market for rewards: https://polymarket.com/event/mojtaba-khamenei-public-appearance-by/mojtaba-khamenei-seen-in-public-by-july-15-155#6l3DSFi
yeah it's low key unambiguous
yeah it's low key unambiguous
https://klipy.com/gifs/war-dogs-war-dogs-movie-rhr
https://klipy.com/gifs/war-dogs-war-dogs-movie-rhr
I mean he stuck to his guns on UFC, give him that
I mean he stuck to his guns on UFC, give him that
https://discord.com/channels/710897173927297116/1521757409432043540/1521832344582099044
https://discord.com/channels/710897173927297116/1521757409432043540/1521832344582099044
how so
how so
it is far from nothing
it is far from nothing
this transit fees clause is a historic humiliation of the united states
this transit fees clause is a historic humiliation of the united states
it's a real pet peeve of mine that we have a number of historic events that happened and polymarket doesn't reflect it with resolution or in some cases almost doesn't
it's a real pet peeve of mine that we have a number of historic events that happened and polymarket doesn't reflect it with resolution or in some cases almost doesn't
yeah that "only" and the whole paragraph really was pretty insane for the US to agree to
yeah that "only" and the whole paragraph really was pretty insane for the US to agree to
whether this constitutes the US reneging or just kicking and screaming, it's irrelevant if the language of the agreement they signed counts
whether this constitutes the US reneging or just kicking and screaming, it's irrelevant if the language of the agreement they signed counts
their position as of the time of the agreement was "we cry about it and lobby the gulf states to step in" they did in this agreement accept iran charging after 60 days tho
their position as of the time of the agreement was "we cry about it and lobby the gulf states to step in" they did in this agreement accept iran charging after 60 days tho
that refers to enrichment after the interim freeze just sayin
that refers to enrichment after the interim freeze just sayin
not for 60 days only
not for 60 days only
and like, you could make a new contract to stay in the job. but it requires renegotiation and consent. you've sworn off all legal right to claim the job on day 61.
and like, you could make a new contract to stay in the job. but it requires renegotiation and consent. you've sworn off all legal right to claim the job on day 61.
good question lol
good question lol
P2 - Yes Rules: > The United States will be considered to have agreed to Iran charging such fees if ... > - Iran charging such fees is included as part of a treaty or deal formally established between the United States and Iran Text of the agreement: > The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America have jointly agreed ... on the following: > the Islamic Republic of Iran will make arrangements ... for the safe passage of commercial vessels, with no charge for 60 days **only** The use of the word "only" strictly speaking codifies that **the USA shall not interfere with charges after 60 days**. To confirm this analysis, see: [ABC News](https://www.facebook.com/reel/3171410476403267): > Iran agrees to safe passage for ships with "no charge for 60 days only." **After that Iran could impose fees, a power that it never had before this war began**. [CBS News analyst](https://x.com/aaronbmaclean/status/2069484113711562870): > the signed MOU allow[s] for Iran to charge beginning after a period of 60 days [WSJ](https://www.wsj.com/opinion/iran-mou-trump-administration-strait-of-hormuz-toll-a3a310b1): > ... with no charge *for 60 days only* .... This means Iran may charge tolls after 60 days. [Former senior diplomat](https://jstreet.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Assessing-the-US-Iran-MOU-and-Prospects-for-Negotiations-1.pdf): > Section 5 of the MOU calls for Iran to open the SOH for “commercial vessels with no charge for 60 days __only__” (emphasis added). Bolstered by the provision that final arrangements for the SOH will be negotiated with Oman and other Gulf states, **this implies that after 60 days, Iran may begin to charge fees in the Strait**. [Yonhap](https://m.ajupress.com/amp/20260618130070402): > Article 5 of the MOU states, "Iran will do its utmost to ensure that commercial vessels navigating from the Persian Gulf to Oman and vice versa can do so safely and without cost for 60 days only." **This limits the free passage period to just 60 days**. [San Diego Union Tribune](https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/2026/06/29/opinion-u-s-fought-for-strait-of-hormuz-only-to-give-it-away/): > In other words, **Iran has gotten the U.S. to agree, in writing, to give Iran the option to charge fees** for safe passage after 60 days The agreement was originally briefed by the White House to reporters [with some revealing details](https://www.dailywire.com/news/iran-deal-opens-door-to-iranian-tolls-in-strait-of-hormuz): > a senior Trump administration official said there isn’t concern tolls will be charged because Gulf governments would not agree to such an arrangement. > > ... “But fundamentally toll-free passage of the Strait of Hormuz for 60 days, and **that will continue because the Persian Gulf States will never agree** to an arrangement that doesn’t permit toll-free access to the Strait of Hormuz ... In sum, **per the "60 days only" clause, the US canceled any legal right to object to transit fees after 60 days.** The US instead pinned its hopes for a Hormuz without fees on the resistance of Gulf allies. Of course, any change of heart by the USA is irrelevant to the market, as long as they formally agreed to accept transit fees at any time.
P2 - Yes Rules: > The United States will be considered to have agreed to Iran charging such fees if ... > - Iran charging such fees is included as part of a treaty or deal formally established between the United States and Iran Text of the agreement: > The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America have jointly agreed ... on the following: > the Islamic Republic of Iran will make arrangements ... for the safe passage of commercial vessels, with no charge for 60 days **only** The use of the word "only" strictly speaking codifies that **the USA shall not interfere with charges after 60 days**. To confirm this analysis, see: [ABC News](https://www.facebook.com/reel/3171410476403267): > Iran agrees to safe passage for ships with "no charge for 60 days only." **After that Iran could impose fees, a power that it never had before this war began**. [CBS News analyst](https://x.com/aaronbmaclean/status/2069484113711562870): > the signed MOU allow[s] for Iran to charge beginning after a period of 60 days [WSJ](https://www.wsj.com/opinion/iran-mou-trump-administration-strait-of-hormuz-toll-a3a310b1): > ... with no charge *for 60 days only* .... This means Iran may charge tolls after 60 days. [Former senior diplomat](https://jstreet.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Assessing-the-US-Iran-MOU-and-Prospects-for-Negotiations-1.pdf): > Section 5 of the MOU calls for Iran to open the SOH for “commercial vessels with no charge for 60 days __only__” (emphasis added). Bolstered by the provision that final arrangements for the SOH will be negotiated with Oman and other Gulf states, **this implies that after 60 days, Iran may begin to charge fees in the Strait**. [Yonhap](https://m.ajupress.com/amp/20260618130070402): > Article 5 of the MOU states, "Iran will do its utmost to ensure that commercial vessels navigating from the Persian Gulf to Oman and vice versa can do so safely and without cost for 60 days only." **This limits the free passage period to just 60 days**. [San Diego Union Tribune](https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/2026/06/29/opinion-u-s-fought-for-strait-of-hormuz-only-to-give-it-away/): > In other words, **Iran has gotten the U.S. to agree, in writing, to give Iran the option to charge fees** for safe passage after 60 days The agreement was originally briefed by the White House to reporters [with some revealing details](https://www.dailywire.com/news/iran-deal-opens-door-to-iranian-tolls-in-strait-of-hormuz): > a senior Trump administration official said there isn’t concern tolls will be charged because Gulf governments would not agree to such an arrangement. > > ... “But fundamentally toll-free passage of the Strait of Hormuz for 60 days, and **that will continue because the Persian Gulf States will never agree** to an arrangement that doesn’t permit toll-free access to the Strait of Hormuz ... In sum, **per the "60 days only" clause, the US canceled any legal right to object to transit fees after 60 days.** The US instead pinned its hopes for a Hormuz without fees on the resistance of Gulf allies. Of course, any change of heart by the USA is irrelevant to the market, as long as they formally agreed to accept transit fees at any time.
<@695040290565914714> i'm just forwarding the allegation due to the conversation asking for evidence, didn't check
<@695040290565914714> i'm just forwarding the allegation due to the conversation asking for evidence, didn't check
.
.
.
.
which is objectively wrong. it's a mixture of immediate and forward looking provisions.
which is objectively wrong. it's a mixture of immediate and forward looking provisions.
Lol the jessica and okayway posts beyond embarassing. if they're going to randomly p4 all my proposals at least let domer write it so there's some dignity in it
Lol the jessica and okayway posts beyond embarassing. if they're going to randomly p4 all my proposals at least let domer write it so there's some dignity in it
also functional oracles are allowed
also functional oracles are allowed
Honestly this is much beside the point even for a P4 take. And not to be rude but this person does appear to have a bit choppy English? Maybe not ideal for linguistic analysis of an English legal document which they've clearly attempted to engage in.
Honestly this is much beside the point even for a P4 take. And not to be rude but this person does appear to have a bit choppy English? Maybe not ideal for linguistic analysis of an English legal document which they've clearly attempted to engage in.
Being called dishonest by a racist crocodile is always a big w
Being called dishonest by a racist crocodile is always a big w
So your theory is that Israel is implementing the parts of the agreement that cost it something on spec without the agreement being in force?
So your theory is that Israel is implementing the parts of the agreement that cost it something on spec without the agreement being in force?
The PM Discord dispute threads are just a duplication of the UMA dispute threads, doubling the already unwieldy number of threads with the same purpose. I thought the point of the PM threads was to divert discussion from <#817444472009785366> and thus salvage the readability of that channel. The Dispute threads should either be non-rate-limited to fulfill that purpose or dropped
The PM Discord dispute threads are just a duplication of the UMA dispute threads, doubling the already unwieldy number of threads with the same purpose. I thought the point of the PM threads was to divert discussion from <#817444472009785366> and thus salvage the readability of that channel. The Dispute threads should either be non-rate-limited to fulfill that purpose or dropped
We can just conduct a study on mechanical turk
We can just conduct a study on mechanical turk
<@1212792946341183578>
<@1212792946341183578>
Already have foreign intervention in Gaza rules
Already have foreign intervention in Gaza rules
Syrian intervention in Lebanon (with Lebanese invitation should count)
Syrian intervention in Lebanon (with Lebanese invitation should count)
Nice try tho
Nice try tho
The Iranians were in Doha with the Qataris
The Iranians were in Doha with the Qataris
Yeah but remotely
Yeah but remotely
I meant i don’t think it implies Americans were in Doha
I meant i don’t think it implies Americans were in Doha
Original report is nbc Doubt it says that
Original report is nbc Doubt it says that
This refers to qatar Iran talks
This refers to qatar Iran talks
What day
What day
That all refers to nuclear arrangements after the final agreement.
That all refers to nuclear arrangements after the final agreement.
Enrichment currently frozen pending final agreement. Enrichment after final agreement under discussion. The Carnegie thing is the one notable counter-source P4 has come up with in the last 24 hours. It's clearly an outlier as we have about 9 sources pointing towards a broad nuclear freezing including enrichment. Still a "consensus" with minor contrary evidence.
Enrichment currently frozen pending final agreement. Enrichment after final agreement under discussion. The Carnegie thing is the one notable counter-source P4 has come up with in the last 24 hours. It's clearly an outlier as we have about 9 sources pointing towards a broad nuclear freezing including enrichment. Still a "consensus" with minor contrary evidence.
The commitment being "not explicit on purpose" has no direct bearing on whether it exists or not.
The commitment being "not explicit on purpose" has no direct bearing on whether it exists or not.
Well it's technically Y
Well it's technically Y
In the agreement, **Iran committed to freeze enrichment for 60+ days.** Under market rules, an enrichment freeze pledge of any duration is enough. > An agreement by Iran to end all enrichment of uranium for any amount of time will count. (Since Iran is known not to be enriching, or at least claiming so, any pledges not to enrich must be counted as “ending”, to avoid a DOA market.) The recent agreement contains: > The Islamic Republic of Iran will maintain the current status quo of its nuclear program This is a substantive pledge, because previously Iran asserted autonomy of nuclear status. But what does this commitment to the status quo mean concretely? **A consensus of credible reporting verifies the meaning of the “nuclear status quo” clause is that Iran promised not to enrich uranium** or renovate nuclear sites. Reuters: > [A] senior Iranian official said pending a final agreement Iran would freeze its nuclear activity, **refraining from further uranium enrichment** or the expansion of nuclear facilities. https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/what-us-iran-say-they-have-agreed-memorandum-end-war-2026-06-15/ An earlier Reuters article stated > Pending a final agreement, Iran would maintain the current status of its nuclear programme, refraining from further uranium enrichment and expansion of nuclear facilities. [citing the senior Iranian official] Note that Reuters itself, not the Iranian official equates “the current status of [Iran’s] nuclear programme” with “[Iran] freez[ing] its nuclear activity”, constituting **an outright assessment by Reuters that “nuclear status quo” means freeze, including enrichment**. For more context, the Iranian MP Mahmoud Nabavian stated on the eve of the deal signing: > One: **our nuclear status quo to be preserved. What does that mean? ** — since the 12-day war until now we haven't enriched a single gram. Preserve it — we said we'd **preserve it, i.e. no more enrichment**, until the final agreement we don't know the date of > Iran has pledged to **maintain the nuclear status quo** until a final agreement is reached, **which means a complete halt to enrichment **and no reconstruction of sites. https://eitaa.com/s/nabavian/9123 More clarifying reporting: WSJ: > **Iran … freezes nuke program** [under the current agreement] https://x.com/laurnorman/status/2067331859319517569 > WSJ analysis [of status quo clause] > **Freezes** the nuclear standoff in place. https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/an-annotated-analysis-of-a-u-s-draft-of-the-iran-deal-6a9ec49f The Washington Examiner : > The two sides agree to maintain **the “status quo,” which means Iran will freeze its nuclear program **and the U.S. will not impose new sanctions https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/white-house/4611876/iran-deal-us-sanctions-nuclear-weapon-14-points/ Prof. Esfandyar Batmanghelidj (JHU): > Clause 9 dictates that ... Iran will **“maintain the status quo” on its nuclear program, meaning that it will not **reconstitute its facilities or **resume enrichment** https://www.bourseandbazaar-substack.org/p/trumps-mou-with-iran-does-not-relinquish > **Iran has agreed to zero enrichment for the duration of negotiations.** https://x.com/yarbatman/status/2067564875715338473 CNN (Brett McGurk): > There is an article, Article 9, which says that everything is ‘status quo.’ ... Iran is not enriching uranium, … this basically freezes that, **so Iran can not enrich uranium. That’s not insignificant. And that’s different from when we were negotiating the JCPOA, when they were enriching** NYT: > For Iran, maintaining the “status quo” of its nuclear program amounts to leaving its bombed nuclear facilities in ruins and its uranium entombed beneath the rubble of air strikes. [which precludes enrichment] https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/17/us/politics/us-iran-agreement-deal-text.html <@1272383282687905939> <@941405798096076880> reupping
In the agreement, **Iran committed to freeze enrichment for 60+ days.** Under market rules, an enrichment freeze pledge of any duration is enough. > An agreement by Iran to end all enrichment of uranium for any amount of time will count. (Since Iran is known not to be enriching, or at least claiming so, any pledges not to enrich must be counted as “ending”, to avoid a DOA market.) The recent agreement contains: > The Islamic Republic of Iran will maintain the current status quo of its nuclear program This is a substantive pledge, because previously Iran asserted autonomy of nuclear status. But what does this commitment to the status quo mean concretely? **A consensus of credible reporting verifies the meaning of the “nuclear status quo” clause is that Iran promised not to enrich uranium** or renovate nuclear sites. Reuters: > [A] senior Iranian official said pending a final agreement Iran would freeze its nuclear activity, **refraining from further uranium enrichment** or the expansion of nuclear facilities. https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/what-us-iran-say-they-have-agreed-memorandum-end-war-2026-06-15/ An earlier Reuters article stated > Pending a final agreement, Iran would maintain the current status of its nuclear programme, refraining from further uranium enrichment and expansion of nuclear facilities. [citing the senior Iranian official] Note that Reuters itself, not the Iranian official equates “the current status of [Iran’s] nuclear programme” with “[Iran] freez[ing] its nuclear activity”, constituting **an outright assessment by Reuters that “nuclear status quo” means freeze, including enrichment**. For more context, the Iranian MP Mahmoud Nabavian stated on the eve of the deal signing: > One: **our nuclear status quo to be preserved. What does that mean? ** — since the 12-day war until now we haven't enriched a single gram. Preserve it — we said we'd **preserve it, i.e. no more enrichment**, until the final agreement we don't know the date of > Iran has pledged to **maintain the nuclear status quo** until a final agreement is reached, **which means a complete halt to enrichment **and no reconstruction of sites. https://eitaa.com/s/nabavian/9123 More clarifying reporting: WSJ: > **Iran … freezes nuke program** [under the current agreement] https://x.com/laurnorman/status/2067331859319517569 > WSJ analysis [of status quo clause] > **Freezes** the nuclear standoff in place. https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/an-annotated-analysis-of-a-u-s-draft-of-the-iran-deal-6a9ec49f The Washington Examiner : > The two sides agree to maintain **the “status quo,” which means Iran will freeze its nuclear program **and the U.S. will not impose new sanctions https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/white-house/4611876/iran-deal-us-sanctions-nuclear-weapon-14-points/ Prof. Esfandyar Batmanghelidj (JHU): > Clause 9 dictates that ... Iran will **“maintain the status quo” on its nuclear program, meaning that it will not **reconstitute its facilities or **resume enrichment** https://www.bourseandbazaar-substack.org/p/trumps-mou-with-iran-does-not-relinquish > **Iran has agreed to zero enrichment for the duration of negotiations.** https://x.com/yarbatman/status/2067564875715338473 CNN (Brett McGurk): > There is an article, Article 9, which says that everything is ‘status quo.’ ... Iran is not enriching uranium, … this basically freezes that, **so Iran can not enrich uranium. That’s not insignificant. And that’s different from when we were negotiating the JCPOA, when they were enriching** NYT: > For Iran, maintaining the “status quo” of its nuclear program amounts to leaving its bombed nuclear facilities in ruins and its uranium entombed beneath the rubble of air strikes. [which precludes enrichment] https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/17/us/politics/us-iran-agreement-deal-text.html <@1272383282687905939> <@941405798096076880> reupping
shld i be doing smth?
shld i be doing smth?
I'd love to have a serious conversation about this market, but I can't look kindly on things like denying the Reuters article means what it means. If it's uncertain for anyone there is more than enough other evidence we presented to contextualize it and figure it out. And that was the crux of the P4 filibuster overnight.
I'd love to have a serious conversation about this market, but I can't look kindly on things like denying the Reuters article means what it means. If it's uncertain for anyone there is more than enough other evidence we presented to contextualize it and figure it out. And that was the crux of the P4 filibuster overnight.
Normally I wouldn't but the N side gained some traction in this chat by just by filibustering and denying
Normally I wouldn't but the N side gained some traction in this chat by just by filibustering and denying
I mean the P2 case is based on reality 90% of the N arguments we've seen are just standard P4 shit flinging The consensus of reporting isn't "overwhelming" but that's not what the rules require
I mean the P2 case is based on reality 90% of the N arguments we've seen are just standard P4 shit flinging The consensus of reporting isn't "overwhelming" but that's not what the rules require
consensus is clearly that status quo implies a broad nuclear freeze including enrichment
consensus is clearly that status quo implies a broad nuclear freeze including enrichment
第 1 / 5 页
下一页 →