Polymarketim not sure hes dying on it. he swept the book down to 66c, then it immediately went back to 90c and he gave up 😂
im not sure hes dying on it. he swept the book down to 66c, then it immediately went back to 90c and he gave up 😂
melmalmelma参与话题 4消息总数 157
该用户的聊天记录定位。
聊天记录
共 157 条，显示第 51-100 条Its P2 here - The rules are quite clear on their exclusions, and they do not exclude humanitarian / disaster recovery military operations. - The Israeli troops enter Suwayada is not a parallel market - pre-clarification it's rules stated "Enter Suwayda Governorate in Syria for military operations", and then the clarification stated that providing humanitarian aid isn't a military operation. - The rules on "US forces enter Iran by Dec" are much closer, as there is no specific "for military operations carve out", the clarification for this market explicitly states: "enter... for operational purposes (e.g., military, humanitarian, etc.) will qualify."
Its P2 here - The rules are quite clear on their exclusions, and they do not exclude humanitarian / disaster recovery military operations. - The Israeli troops enter Suwayada is not a parallel market - pre-clarification it's rules stated "Enter Suwayda Governorate in Syria for military operations", and then the clarification stated that providing humanitarian aid isn't a military operation. - The rules on "US forces enter Iran by Dec" are much closer, as there is no specific "for military operations carve out", the clarification for this market explicitly states: "enter... for operational purposes (e.g., military, humanitarian, etc.) will qualify."
someone forgot to put on their reading glasses and misclicked dispute
someone forgot to put on their reading glasses and misclicked dispute
if you think your edge here is they'll clarify to modify the rules, i'd sell now
if you think your edge here is they'll clarify to modify the rules, i'd sell now
agreed. and tbf on the newer iran markets, their rules are a lot better
agreed. and tbf on the newer iran markets, their rules are a lot better
can you sweep the book down to 66c again please
can you sweep the book down to 66c again please
- The rules are quite clear on their exclusions, and they do not exclude humanitarian / disaster recovery military operations. - The Israeli troops enter Suwayada is not a parallel market - pre-clarification it's rules stated "Enter Suwayda Governorate in Syria for military operations", and then the clarification stated that providing humanitarian aid isn't a military operation. - The rules on "US forces enter Iran by Dec" are much closer, as there is no specific "for military operations carve out", the clarification for this market explicitly states: "enter... for operational purposes (e.g., military, humanitarian, etc.) will qualify." (P2) - YES
- The rules are quite clear on their exclusions, and they do not exclude humanitarian / disaster recovery military operations. - The Israeli troops enter Suwayada is not a parallel market - pre-clarification it's rules stated "Enter Suwayda Governorate in Syria for military operations", and then the clarification stated that providing humanitarian aid isn't a military operation. - The rules on "US forces enter Iran by Dec" are much closer, as there is no specific "for military operations carve out", the clarification for this market explicitly states: "enter... for operational purposes (e.g., military, humanitarian, etc.) will qualify." (P2) - YES
not the precedent you think it is
not the precedent you think it is
scotty misclick
scotty misclick
please propose: https://polymarket.com/event/us-lifts-iran-ofac-sanctions-by/will-the-us-lift-direct-iran-ofac-sanctions-by-june-19-2026 as NO. no sanctions lifted per ofac website: https://ofac.treasury.gov/press-releases, https://ofac.treasury.gov/
please propose: https://polymarket.com/event/us-lifts-iran-ofac-sanctions-by/will-the-us-lift-direct-iran-ofac-sanctions-by-june-19-2026 as NO. no sanctions lifted per ofac website: https://ofac.treasury.gov/press-releases, https://ofac.treasury.gov/
fight to the bitter end, love it
fight to the bitter end, love it
here he is
here he is
its the correct thing todo tbf, just does reveal they think their hand is weak
its the correct thing todo tbf, just does reveal they think their hand is weak
and tried july which has no liq / interest
and tried july which has no liq / interest
a nice tell lol
a nice tell lol
you know even the Y holders know its just a scam attempt when its proposed like that
you know even the Y holders know its just a scam attempt when its proposed like that
this, and then try july too
this, and then try july too
someone want to make some calls and ask the negotiators what they meant by "status quo"? it feels rude to assume their intent.
someone want to make some calls and ask the negotiators what they meant by "status quo"? it feels rude to assume their intent.
the status quo is they have the right to enrich uranium. that is continuing through negotiations. how much uranium actually gets enriched doesnt matter. even if all of their enrichment plants were completely non functional, and they couldn't enrich (we dont actually know) - this would not add up to them "agreeing" to end uranium enrichment
the status quo is they have the right to enrich uranium. that is continuing through negotiations. how much uranium actually gets enriched doesnt matter. even if all of their enrichment plants were completely non functional, and they couldn't enrich (we dont actually know) - this would not add up to them "agreeing" to end uranium enrichment
not correct, and even if true. not able to enrich isnt even the same as agreeing to end their uranium enrichment
not correct, and even if true. not able to enrich isnt even the same as agreeing to end their uranium enrichment
that would be a serious ace, too bad it doesn't exist
that would be a serious ace, too bad it doesn't exist
would love to see where the iaea say the status quo is that iran agree not to enrich
would love to see where the iaea say the status quo is that iran agree not to enrich
crickets
crickets
tbh i think p4 on both. super ambigious (by design..) either way at the moment. the clause was literally written to be vague - so it's no surprise we dont know whats actually happening either way lol
tbh i think p4 on both. super ambigious (by design..) either way at the moment. the clause was literally written to be vague - so it's no surprise we dont know whats actually happening either way lol
current status = iran maintains the right to enrich i dont think they got a stockpile of 60% enriched uranium any other way lol
current status = iran maintains the right to enrich i dont think they got a stockpile of 60% enriched uranium any other way lol
i'm not currently sitting on the toilet, but i have the right to go shit whenever i want. me agreeing to maintain that status quo, does not mean i am agreeing to never shit again
i'm not currently sitting on the toilet, but i have the right to go shit whenever i want. me agreeing to maintain that status quo, does not mean i am agreeing to never shit again
*iran not currently enriching != iran not having the right to enrichment* is something thats getting conflated here too
*iran not currently enriching != iran not having the right to enrichment* is something thats getting conflated here too
where is this clear consensus you speak of, is it in the room with us?
where is this clear consensus you speak of, is it in the room with us?
very hard to argue that a clause that is deliberately worded to be vague counts as an agreement or pledge. what would the Y clarification even say lol
very hard to argue that a clause that is deliberately worded to be vague counts as an agreement or pledge. what would the Y clarification even say lol
here we go
here we go
the inspectors are turning up to Bushehr, and all the workers are just sitting on their hands doing nothing
the inspectors are turning up to Bushehr, and all the workers are just sitting on their hands doing nothing
i think you didnt read the whole thing
i think you didnt read the whole thing
for uranium, if you just read the MOU, you get P4. all other reporting around it is mixed at best
for uranium, if you just read the MOU, you get P4. all other reporting around it is mixed at best
troops made sense, but the logical leaps you need to make to even understand the "Y" argument for uranium, let alone buy into it, are pretty wild
troops made sense, but the logical leaps you need to make to even understand the "Y" argument for uranium, let alone buy into it, are pretty wild
foward that over to PM, sounds about right 😂
foward that over to PM, sounds about right 😂
wow i wake up and troop market is missing, what happened?
wow i wake up and troop market is missing, what happened?
could you point to me in the rules where it says that any troops need to actually move anywhere?
could you point to me in the rules where it says that any troops need to actually move anywhere?
please read clause 3, think hard.
please read clause 3, think hard.
the commitment is indeed definitive. whether or not they go back on it, start bombing each other, never sign a final deal, etc - doesn't matter for the resolution of this market
the commitment is indeed definitive. whether or not they go back on it, start bombing each other, never sign a final deal, etc - doesn't matter for the resolution of this market
- they have committed to signing a final deal (clause 3) - they have committed to withdrawing troops once the final deal is signed (clause 4) - therefore they have agreed to withdraw troops at the risk of repeating myself
- they have committed to signing a final deal (clause 3) - they have committed to withdrawing troops once the final deal is signed (clause 4) - therefore they have agreed to withdraw troops at the risk of repeating myself
https://x.com/drpezeshkian/status/2067558274568749334
https://x.com/drpezeshkian/status/2067558274568749334
not sure that statement even justifies a response
not sure that statement even justifies a response
crying
crying
the MOU is written such that the US has entered into a conditional, but binding agreement, to withdraw troops
the MOU is written such that the US has entered into a conditional, but binding agreement, to withdraw troops
it doesn't matter if they end up going back to bombing each other, it doesn't matter for the market rules
it doesn't matter if they end up going back to bombing each other, it doesn't matter for the market rules
i guess you could maybe provide me with some logical arguments that might help me change mine then, if you'd be so kind
i guess you could maybe provide me with some logical arguments that might help me change mine then, if you'd be so kind
- they have committed to signing a final deal (clause 3) - they have committed to withdrawing troops once the final deal is signed (clause 4) - therefore they have agreed to withdraw troops at the risk of repeating myself
- they have committed to signing a final deal (clause 3) - they have committed to withdrawing troops once the final deal is signed (clause 4) - therefore they have agreed to withdraw troops at the risk of repeating myself
unlikely, not much to say about it
unlikely, not much to say about it
dumb question: how did iran get a stockpile of enriched uranium if the status quo was that they weren't enriching?
dumb question: how did iran get a stockpile of enriched uranium if the status quo was that they weren't enriching?
uranium market doesn't resolve to Y based on this, there's just less incentive to pressure the OB lower with 12 days left where further news can come out; and a fairly vocal scam attempt at the moment
uranium market doesn't resolve to Y based on this, there's just less incentive to pressure the OB lower with 12 days left where further news can come out; and a fairly vocal scam attempt at the moment