PolymarketLooks like a whale. 🐳
Looks like a whale. 🐳
JosephCrowe参与话题 1消息总数 20
该用户的聊天记录定位。
聊天记录
共 20 条，显示第 1-20 条The classic Whale Curve:
The classic Whale Curve:
Just to reiterate some facts: there's no consensus of reliable sources that: (1) Iran wasn't enriching at time of signing, nor that (2) "status quo" in the MoU means they commit to zero enrichment even if this was true. You can't be an armchair international lawyer and substitute your own interpretation of the highly conntext-sensitive terminology in the MoU. On the contrary, precedent from previous deals shows that a status quo "freeze for free" likely permits low-level enrichment, and nobody could realistically prosecute Iran for violating the deal if they did so.
Just to reiterate some facts: there's no consensus of reliable sources that: (1) Iran wasn't enriching at time of signing, nor that (2) "status quo" in the MoU means they commit to zero enrichment even if this was true. You can't be an armchair international lawyer and substitute your own interpretation of the highly conntext-sensitive terminology in the MoU. On the contrary, precedent from previous deals shows that a status quo "freeze for free" likely permits low-level enrichment, and nobody could realistically prosecute Iran for violating the deal if they did so.
Polymarket is so fucking broken when a position has to be "defended" from being stolen like this. It's become a parody of itself by now..
Polymarket is so fucking broken when a position has to be "defended" from being stolen like this. It's become a parody of itself by now..
Unbelievable!!
Unbelievable!!
I just thought I'd let everyone know that, because of the repeated abuse, manipulation, and poorly formulated market rules on Polymarket, I'm starting to move my liquidity to Kalshi instead. They seem much more serious about making their markets fair.
I just thought I'd let everyone know that, because of the repeated abuse, manipulation, and poorly formulated market rules on Polymarket, I'm starting to move my liquidity to Kalshi instead. They seem much more serious about making their markets fair.
It's the one part of their game they can't hide.
It's the one part of their game they can't hide.
Yes, that's what I assume. I just mean the YES-apologists who even admitted to being involved in the proposal have never addressed this.
Yes, that's what I assume. I just mean the YES-apologists who even admitted to being involved in the proposal have never addressed this.
They've never explained why they proposed on July and December instead of June, so one has to assume it was a scam attempt.
They've never explained why they proposed on July and December instead of June, so one has to assume it was a scam attempt.
Don't believe them for a second.
Don't believe them for a second.
Some would say there wasn't a point proposing 1× either.
Some would say there wasn't a point proposing 1× either.
Source?
Source?
The NO side does **not** rely on that. It would be a fallacious argument if it did, because that's not relevant to the market resolution rules.
The NO side does **not** rely on that. It would be a fallacious argument if it did, because that's not relevant to the market resolution rules.
**The primary resolution source for this market will be a consensus of credible reporting.**
**The primary resolution source for this market will be a consensus of credible reporting.**
Occam's razor is meant for modelling things, not for interpreting international agreement texts.
Occam's razor is meant for modelling things, not for interpreting international agreement texts.
Does UMA tend to favour YES in ambiguous cases? It seems so from what I've seen.
Does UMA tend to favour YES in ambiguous cases? It seems so from what I've seen.
This is a red herring. It would of course be interesting if someone could prove they were enriching, but it's unlikely to be possible to prove it definitively, and more importantly not necessary to refute the YES argument.
This is a red herring. It would of course be interesting if someone could prove they were enriching, but it's unlikely to be possible to prove it definitively, and more importantly not necessary to refute the YES argument.
The clarification should be added to the July and December markets too, because those are the ones with current proposals.
The clarification should be added to the July and December markets too, because those are the ones with current proposals.
There's a factual error in the documentation at <https://docs.polymarket.com/concepts/resolution#resolution-rules>. It states: > Polymarket uses the UMA Optimistic Oracle for decentralized, permissionless resolution. **Anyone can propose an outcome, and anyone can dispute it if they believe it’s incorrect.** (Boldface added by me for emphasis.) I understand that one has to be "whitelisted", so this is not true. It should probably also mention that, in addition to having to be whitelisted, "anyone" also has to have $750 available. I also see that my earlier documentation error report <https://discord.com/channels/710897173927297116/1460719234249130288/1489785624461316176> was just straight-up ignored. Amazing!
There's a factual error in the documentation at <https://docs.polymarket.com/concepts/resolution#resolution-rules>. It states: > Polymarket uses the UMA Optimistic Oracle for decentralized, permissionless resolution. **Anyone can propose an outcome, and anyone can dispute it if they believe it’s incorrect.** (Boldface added by me for emphasis.) I understand that one has to be "whitelisted", so this is not true. It should probably also mention that, in addition to having to be whitelisted, "anyone" also has to have $750 available. I also see that my earlier documentation error report <https://discord.com/channels/710897173927297116/1460719234249130288/1489785624461316176> was just straight-up ignored. Amazing!
A lot of people were taken aback by the recent resolution of <https://polymarket.com/event/us-iran-nuclear-deal-by-june-30> to Yes, including myself. It seems that someone managed to get in a proposed outcome by stealth without anyone noticing it in time. I'd like to suggest a feature where shareholders can get an automatic notification when the dispute window has opened, to avoid this in future.
A lot of people were taken aback by the recent resolution of <https://polymarket.com/event/us-iran-nuclear-deal-by-june-30> to Yes, including myself. It seems that someone managed to get in a proposed outcome by stealth without anyone noticing it in time. I'd like to suggest a feature where shareholders can get an automatic notification when the dispute window has opened, to avoid this in future.