PolymarketIt's like hiding context to create a trap. If this is the way Poly works, then ok.
It's like hiding context to create a trap. If this is the way Poly works, then ok.
Sinotaza参与话题 1消息总数 6
该用户的聊天记录定位。
聊天记录
共 6 条，显示第 1-6 条Why then was it not clarified? If so, ER is 100% and all others are scammed
Why then was it not clarified? If so, ER is 100% and all others are scammed
No, but speak & read in Russian. Why this matters? I just see the ambiguity in market context language that comes from specifics of Russian electoral system, and which more than likely would result in disputes if not clarified pre-resolution.
No, but speak & read in Russian. Why this matters? I just see the ambiguity in market context language that comes from specifics of Russian electoral system, and which more than likely would result in disputes if not clarified pre-resolution.
Use one reference for the baseline # of seats - the source referenced in the rules of market, is dumatv/fractions. To avoid disputes and artificial counts
Use one reference for the baseline # of seats - the source referenced in the rules of market, is dumatv/fractions. To avoid disputes and artificial counts
If the DumaTV-style reference is used, the market remains competitive. But if the lower vacancy-adjusted number is used, United Russia becomes almost mechanically favored, because it gets artificial “gains” from refilling seats that were already won / controlled by United Russia or pro-United Russia single-mandate deputies during the term. Why the lower vacancy-adjusted number should not be used: * The bulletin points to outgoing party/faction seat count and official Duma media sources such as DumaTV. * Vacant mandates are not a party competing in this market. * The lower number reflects interim vacancies, not true party seat losses. * Many of those vacancies appear to come from United Russia / pro-United Russia single-mandate seats. * Counting vacancies as lost seats converts “vacancy recovery” into “seat gains.” * Since the next Duma will have all 450 seats filled, using a vacancy-adjusted baseline would mechanically credit United Russia for refilling empty seats. * If vacant seats were intended to affect the market, the rules would need explicit treatment for vacant / unfilled mandates. There is no “other” option nor market says “gained-filled” seats * most importantly: if we count vacancy recovery as seat gains, then United Russia has effectively managed to engineer the Polymarket election too.😩 Requested interpretation: please apply the latest bulletin consistently and use the official outgoing faction-count source/methodology, rather than a lower vacancy-adjusted snapshot that would artificially reduce United Russia’s baseline.
If the DumaTV-style reference is used, the market remains competitive. But if the lower vacancy-adjusted number is used, United Russia becomes almost mechanically favored, because it gets artificial “gains” from refilling seats that were already won / controlled by United Russia or pro-United Russia single-mandate deputies during the term. Why the lower vacancy-adjusted number should not be used: * The bulletin points to outgoing party/faction seat count and official Duma media sources such as DumaTV. * Vacant mandates are not a party competing in this market. * The lower number reflects interim vacancies, not true party seat losses. * Many of those vacancies appear to come from United Russia / pro-United Russia single-mandate seats. * Counting vacancies as lost seats converts “vacancy recovery” into “seat gains.” * Since the next Duma will have all 450 seats filled, using a vacancy-adjusted baseline would mechanically credit United Russia for refilling empty seats. * If vacant seats were intended to affect the market, the rules would need explicit treatment for vacant / unfilled mandates. There is no “other” option nor market says “gained-filled” seats * most importantly: if we count vacancy recovery as seat gains, then United Russia has effectively managed to engineer the Polymarket election too.😩 Requested interpretation: please apply the latest bulletin consistently and use the official outgoing faction-count source/methodology, rather than a lower vacancy-adjusted snapshot that would artificially reduce United Russia’s baseline.
Baseline ambiguity after bulletin update — Russian Duma “most seats gained” market https://polymarket.com/event/which-party-will-gain-most-seats-in-russian-parliamentary-election Multiple users have raised the same issue: which baseline should be used for United Russia’s current seat count? This matters because there are two possible numbers: * DumaTV / official faction reference: around 325 seats * Vacancy-adjusted Duma page: around 311–312 seats, because some mandates are currently vacant The latest bulletin appears to confirm the key point: the market should resolve using the party’s seat count as per source such as dumatv.ru/fractions used in case of ambiguity. That supports using the official faction-count methodology, not a lower vacancy-adjusted snapshot.
Baseline ambiguity after bulletin update — Russian Duma “most seats gained” market https://polymarket.com/event/which-party-will-gain-most-seats-in-russian-parliamentary-election Multiple users have raised the same issue: which baseline should be used for United Russia’s current seat count? This matters because there are two possible numbers: * DumaTV / official faction reference: around 325 seats * Vacancy-adjusted Duma page: around 311–312 seats, because some mandates are currently vacant The latest bulletin appears to confirm the key point: the market should resolve using the party’s seat count as per source such as dumatv.ru/fractions used in case of ambiguity. That supports using the official faction-count methodology, not a lower vacancy-adjusted snapshot.