PolymarketWhat the fuck is this literally
What the fuck is this literally
Analista.参与话题 9消息总数 501
该用户的聊天记录定位。
聊天记录
共 501 条，显示第 101-150 条If this was the picture posted would you argue that it counts?
If this was the picture posted would you argue that it counts?
The UFC logo happened to be there, upside down and not in full
The UFC logo happened to be there, upside down and not in full
It makes a difference on the intention to actually post that content
It makes a difference on the intention to actually post that content
Still this is an upside down picture of the UFC logo, the picture is clearly depicting the White house while the big logo on the floor is upside down and cut, regardless of the UFC logo fitting it
Still this is an upside down picture of the UFC logo, the picture is clearly depicting the White house while the big logo on the floor is upside down and cut, regardless of the UFC logo fitting it
It would be a crazy scam against 80years of history if P2 passes
It would be a crazy scam against 80years of history if P2 passes
I bought little no, I think thonker has a valid point per precedent
I bought little no, I think thonker has a valid point per precedent
P4 also imo
P4 also imo
No outlet reported this as recognition. CNN, Axios, Al Jazeera, Arab News, and Times of Israel all describe it as a "first step" or "framework" toward a "future" or "eventual" peace deal. CNN notes outright that the two countries "have never had diplomatic relations," and nothing in the coverage says that changed. The market's backstop standard is "a consensus of credible reporting," and the consensus is unanimous that this is a preliminary framework, not recognition. Sources: [CNN](https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/26/middleeast/israel-and-lebanon-sign-framework-agreement-latam-intl): [Axios](https://www.axios.com/2026/06/26/israel-lebanon-framework-agreement-hezbollah): [Al Jazeera (what the agreement is): ](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/6/26/what-is-the-framework-agreement-signed-by-israel-and-lebanon) [Arab News: ](https://www.arabnews.com/node/2648702/middle-east) [Times of Israel (full text):](https://www.timesofisrael.com/full-text-of-israel-lebanon-framework-deal-that-includes-slight-idf-pullback/)
No outlet reported this as recognition. CNN, Axios, Al Jazeera, Arab News, and Times of Israel all describe it as a "first step" or "framework" toward a "future" or "eventual" peace deal. CNN notes outright that the two countries "have never had diplomatic relations," and nothing in the coverage says that changed. The market's backstop standard is "a consensus of credible reporting," and the consensus is unanimous that this is a preliminary framework, not recognition. Sources: [CNN](https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/26/middleeast/israel-and-lebanon-sign-framework-agreement-latam-intl): [Axios](https://www.axios.com/2026/06/26/israel-lebanon-framework-agreement-hezbollah): [Al Jazeera (what the agreement is): ](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/6/26/what-is-the-framework-agreement-signed-by-israel-and-lebanon) [Arab News: ](https://www.arabnews.com/node/2648702/middle-east) [Times of Israel (full text):](https://www.timesofisrael.com/full-text-of-israel-lebanon-framework-deal-that-includes-slight-idf-pullback/)
This clause shouldn't count. The market requires "a government's formal recognition of the State of Israel" and explicitly says "an announcement of intentions will not suffice." The Trilateral Framework is exactly that, an announcement of intentions. Its own text calls it an "initial step," declares an "ambition to end conflict" and "establish peaceful neighborly relations" through "future agreements," and commits the parties only to "establish working groups to draft the full comprehensive peace and security agreement." The word "establish" concedes that relations don't yet exist. Affirming each state's "right to exist in peace" is not the same legal act as recognition: recognition is a discrete unilateral act acknowledging statehood, and for an implied recognition to count, the intent has to be unambiguous. A document that frames itself as a preliminary roadmap to future negotiations is the opposite of unambiguous. Concretely, Lebanon and Israel still have no diplomatic relations, no exchange of ambassadors, and Lebanon appears on no list of states recognizing Israel. Compare the actual bar: Egypt (1979), Jordan (1994), and the Abraham Accords (2020) were recognition and normalization instruments that established diplomatic relations outright. This framework only promises to negotiate toward one. P4
This clause shouldn't count. The market requires "a government's formal recognition of the State of Israel" and explicitly says "an announcement of intentions will not suffice." The Trilateral Framework is exactly that, an announcement of intentions. Its own text calls it an "initial step," declares an "ambition to end conflict" and "establish peaceful neighborly relations" through "future agreements," and commits the parties only to "establish working groups to draft the full comprehensive peace and security agreement." The word "establish" concedes that relations don't yet exist. Affirming each state's "right to exist in peace" is not the same legal act as recognition: recognition is a discrete unilateral act acknowledging statehood, and for an implied recognition to count, the intent has to be unambiguous. A document that frames itself as a preliminary roadmap to future negotiations is the opposite of unambiguous. Concretely, Lebanon and Israel still have no diplomatic relations, no exchange of ambassadors, and Lebanon appears on no list of states recognizing Israel. Compare the actual bar: Egypt (1979), Jordan (1994), and the Abraham Accords (2020) were recognition and normalization instruments that established diplomatic relations outright. This framework only promises to negotiate toward one. P4
I choose violence when in doubt
I choose violence when in doubt
ur mama is broke bigga
ur mama is broke bigga
HELL YEAH FUCK THE CFTC
HELL YEAH FUCK THE CFTC
DID WE GET BLESSED WITH SOME KINETIC ACTION MARKET
DID WE GET BLESSED WITH SOME KINETIC ACTION MARKET
https://polymarket.com/event/iran-successfully-targets-shipping-onptptpt-20260625225210236?r=Analista#Qzvxn67
https://polymarket.com/event/iran-successfully-targets-shipping-onptptpt-20260625225210236?r=Analista#Qzvxn67
Since we'r not going to have anymore war market we rather have long diplomatic process than strike
Since we'r not going to have anymore war market we rather have long diplomatic process than strike
we do have a couple of months of diplomacy ahead
we do have a couple of months of diplomacy ahead
I'm impressed
I'm impressed
Yeah I'm telling you this looks like good work
Yeah I'm telling you this looks like good work
*unless they occur as part of a new formally convened senior-level U.S.-Iran peace-talks round.*
*unless they occur as part of a new formally convened senior-level U.S.-Iran peace-talks round.*
The other instances looks logic too
The other instances looks logic too
No it's not, preparatory meeting were always considered to be non relevant
No it's not, preparatory meeting were always considered to be non relevant
Nah bruh lmao
Nah bruh lmao
> Follow-on technical talks from the June 22 Switzerland round will not qualify by themselves. Technical, staff-level, working-group, implementation, monitoring, preparatory, or deconfliction meetings will not qualify unless they occur as part of a new formally convened senior-level U.S.-Iran peace-talks round.
> Follow-on technical talks from the June 22 Switzerland round will not qualify by themselves. Technical, staff-level, working-group, implementation, monitoring, preparatory, or deconfliction meetings will not qualify unless they occur as part of a new formally convened senior-level U.S.-Iran peace-talks round.
It's always the same resolution criteria but the wording of the ruleset has clearly improved
It's always the same resolution criteria but the wording of the ruleset has clearly improved
Also next diplomatic meeting market
Also next diplomatic meeting market
I've seen a steep improvement on quality of ruleset
I've seen a steep improvement on quality of ruleset
Did polymarket just employed qualified people for Rules writing?
Did polymarket just employed qualified people for Rules writing?
Is anybody having issues with pnl showing correctly?
Is anybody having issues with pnl showing correctly?
Is anoin giving away money again? Why the hell is so high
Is anoin giving away money again? Why the hell is so high
Is anyone following tomorrow negotiations in geneva?
Is anyone following tomorrow negotiations in geneva?
I don't wanna stress
I don't wanna stress
And I'm leaving for a long weekend tomorrow
And I'm leaving for a long weekend tomorrow
Scammers will give me better entry
Scammers will give me better entry
Whatever it's in the MOU is an official agreement
Whatever it's in the MOU is an official agreement
Which is literally what rules ask for: **Iran publicly agrees to end all enrichment of uranium**
Which is literally what rules ask for: **Iran publicly agrees to end all enrichment of uranium**
Status quo literally means no change to current situation. Current situation isn't that iranian agreed to stop enriching
Status quo literally means no change to current situation. Current situation isn't that iranian agreed to stop enriching
BRACE
BRACE
Did they fix the problem with fake clarification on chain?
Did they fix the problem with fake clarification on chain?
Market is about agreement, not execution, it doesn't matter what the condition for execution are, as long as it is a definitive agreement.
Market is about agreement, not execution, it doesn't matter what the condition for execution are, as long as it is a definitive agreement.
<@941405798096076880>
<@941405798096076880>
Exaclty the same
Exaclty the same
Same for sanctions
Same for sanctions
Exactly, according to them is not a definitive agreement because the execution depends on the procedure to be agreed. So what if they never agree on procedure? The did not agree to sanction relief? It's retarted
Exactly, according to them is not a definitive agreement because the execution depends on the procedure to be agreed. So what if they never agree on procedure? The did not agree to sanction relief? It's retarted
The No argoument is based on the fact that the condition for the execution of the agreement could never happen. Which, is retarted
The No argoument is based on the fact that the condition for the execution of the agreement could never happen. Which, is retarted
The iranians *signed an agreement* where the American *expressed some opennes* on withdrawing troops according to you?
The iranians *signed an agreement* where the American *expressed some opennes* on withdrawing troops according to you?
Parties committed to it's achievment. How would it allow for no deal?
Parties committed to it's achievment. How would it allow for no deal?
So what is it? A suggestion?
So what is it? A suggestion?
dm
dm
# Troop withdrawal is among the aspect agreed inside the MOU. Denying this is denying reality. # An agreement can be definitive (formal document as the MOU, signed by all parties) and it's execution be conditional at the same time.
# Troop withdrawal is among the aspect agreed inside the MOU. Denying this is denying reality. # An agreement can be definitive (formal document as the MOU, signed by all parties) and it's execution be conditional at the same time.