Polymarketlogic only goes no here
logic only goes no here
Lanfear参与话题 0消息总数 46
该用户的聊天记录定位。
聊天记录
共 46 条，显示第 1-46 条It doesnt have this pledge, that is solely your interpretation of it
It doesnt have this pledge, that is solely your interpretation of it
The market needs an agreement to End all enrichment, even if temporary, which there is not
The market needs an agreement to End all enrichment, even if temporary, which there is not
They never agreed to end all enrichment for any amount of time. Your point has been refuted many times already
They never agreed to end all enrichment for any amount of time. Your point has been refuted many times already
status quo = the fight is frozen, not the enrichment think about what the US and Iran actually disagree on. it's not "how much is Iran enriching right now," that's just a number you read off a meter. the real fight is: is Iran ALLOWED to enrich at all. US says zero. Iran says it's our right, never giving it up. THAT fight is what's frozen. and the MOU literally proves it. Para 8 says they'll "discuss enrichment" in the final deal. so the document itself says enrichment is the unsettled question. you don't put something on the "discuss later" list and also secretly resolve it in the next paragraph. so when Para 9 says "maintain status quo," it means hold the fight in place, not "Iran caved to zero." that's the whole point of a standstill. it freezes both sides so nobody wins or loses ground before the real talks. if "status quo" meant Iran is now at zero, that's not a freeze, that's Iran losing the exact thing they agreed to argue about later. makes no sense. so the Yes case dies at step 1. status quo = frozen fight, not "agreed to end." and even if you give the YES side that Iran's at zero right now (which even the IAEA can't confirm), a freeze pending talks still isn't a pledge to end, which is what the rules need.
status quo = the fight is frozen, not the enrichment think about what the US and Iran actually disagree on. it's not "how much is Iran enriching right now," that's just a number you read off a meter. the real fight is: is Iran ALLOWED to enrich at all. US says zero. Iran says it's our right, never giving it up. THAT fight is what's frozen. and the MOU literally proves it. Para 8 says they'll "discuss enrichment" in the final deal. so the document itself says enrichment is the unsettled question. you don't put something on the "discuss later" list and also secretly resolve it in the next paragraph. so when Para 9 says "maintain status quo," it means hold the fight in place, not "Iran caved to zero." that's the whole point of a standstill. it freezes both sides so nobody wins or loses ground before the real talks. if "status quo" meant Iran is now at zero, that's not a freeze, that's Iran losing the exact thing they agreed to argue about later. makes no sense. so the Yes case dies at step 1. status quo = frozen fight, not "agreed to end." and even if you give the YES side that Iran's at zero right now (which even the IAEA can't confirm), a freeze pending talks still isn't a pledge to end, which is what the rules need.
No this has been refuted countless times already
No this has been refuted countless times already
Not true, read the rules again
Not true, read the rules again
They have never promised an END to enrichment
They have never promised an END to enrichment
This is explcitly excluded. Agreements to merely limit or cap the level or quality of enrichment—such as reducing enrichment to below weapons-grade thresholds—will not qualify.
This is explcitly excluded. Agreements to merely limit or cap the level or quality of enrichment—such as reducing enrichment to below weapons-grade thresholds—will not qualify.
Exactly This, it means Iran argues they have the right on Enrichment, it's the US explicitly not agreeing to Iran's demands. This issue will be dealt with in the final deal. It absolutely does not mean an end to enrichment.
Exactly This, it means Iran argues they have the right on Enrichment, it's the US explicitly not agreeing to Iran's demands. This issue will be dealt with in the final deal. It absolutely does not mean an end to enrichment.
It's a super clear NO with current rules. Don't know how anyone can keep argueing for yes here..
It's a super clear NO with current rules. Don't know how anyone can keep argueing for yes here..
This
This
I disagree, but even following your take: Iran argues they have a legal right, the disagreement on this is the status quo.
I disagree, but even following your take: Iran argues they have a legal right, the disagreement on this is the status quo.
thos is excluded per - Agreements to merely limit or cap the level or quality of enrichment—such as reducing enrichment to below weapons-grade thresholds—will not qualify.
thos is excluded per - Agreements to merely limit or cap the level or quality of enrichment—such as reducing enrichment to below weapons-grade thresholds—will not qualify.
https://thebulletin.org/2026/05/irans-positions-at-the-npt-review-conference-are-rational-ignoring-them-would-weaken-the-treaty/
https://thebulletin.org/2026/05/irans-positions-at-the-npt-review-conference-are-rational-ignoring-them-would-weaken-the-treaty/
You keep repeating this but this is disputed and Iran disagrees with this and says they have a legal right for civilian use enrichment. This disagreement is the status quo
You keep repeating this but this is disputed and Iran disagrees with this and says they have a legal right for civilian use enrichment. This disagreement is the status quo
This is explicitly excluded in the cap/limit language in the rules
This is explicitly excluded in the cap/limit language in the rules
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20260618-trump-open-to-iran-keeping-nuclear-enrichment-rights-as-new-deal-takes-shape/?amp Retaining it's right.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20260618-trump-open-to-iran-keeping-nuclear-enrichment-rights-as-new-deal-takes-shape/?amp Retaining it's right.
Well Trump even says they agree with Iran enriching for civilian use
Well Trump even says they agree with Iran enriching for civilian use
to END enrichment
to END enrichment
Even IAEA doesn't but apparently you do?
Even IAEA doesn't but apparently you do?
Continuation of the status quo, no continuation of not enriching. Your logic doesn't hold up
Continuation of the status quo, no continuation of not enriching. Your logic doesn't hold up
Things as they are can't imply ending enrichment, because ending is a change, not a continuation.
Things as they are can't imply ending enrichment, because ending is a change, not a continuation.
Maintaining the status quo" is a pledge, sure, but a pledge to do what. It's a pledge to keep things as they are, not a pledge to end enrichment. Those are opposite acts. You maintain a state, you end an activity. Calling the maintaining a pledge doesn't change what is being pledged.
Maintaining the status quo" is a pledge, sure, but a pledge to do what. It's a pledge to keep things as they are, not a pledge to end enrichment. Those are opposite acts. You maintain a state, you end an activity. Calling the maintaining a pledge doesn't change what is being pledged.
This is not in the rules. The market doesn't resolve on what would make the framework coherent. It resolves on whether Iran publicly agreed to end all enrichment. "A freeze is implied because otherwise downblending makes no sense" is your reasoning, not Iran's pledge. And the argument actually cuts against Yes. You're inferring a freeze to keep the stockpile constant. A freeze to hold things steady during talks is a temporary cap, which the rules exclude, not an agreement to end. Even on your own logic the best you reach is "Iran held enrichment flat for the window," which is the standstill, not a renunciation. It also overreaches the text. Para 8 says the parties "agree to discuss the issue of enrichment" and resolve the stockpile via a mechanism "to be mutually agreed." Both are future and unsettled. You're filling that gap with an implied present halt the document doesn't state, while Iran openly says it won't give up the right and a lawmaker calls it "suspension until the final agreement." Your own conclusion, that the status quo "eludes a strict definition," is the No outcome: an undefined status quo is not a public pledge to end all enrichment.
This is not in the rules. The market doesn't resolve on what would make the framework coherent. It resolves on whether Iran publicly agreed to end all enrichment. "A freeze is implied because otherwise downblending makes no sense" is your reasoning, not Iran's pledge. And the argument actually cuts against Yes. You're inferring a freeze to keep the stockpile constant. A freeze to hold things steady during talks is a temporary cap, which the rules exclude, not an agreement to end. Even on your own logic the best you reach is "Iran held enrichment flat for the window," which is the standstill, not a renunciation. It also overreaches the text. Para 8 says the parties "agree to discuss the issue of enrichment" and resolve the stockpile via a mechanism "to be mutually agreed." Both are future and unsettled. You're filling that gap with an implied present halt the document doesn't state, while Iran openly says it won't give up the right and a lawmaker calls it "suspension until the final agreement." Your own conclusion, that the status quo "eludes a strict definition," is the No outcome: an undefined status quo is not a public pledge to end all enrichment.
They did not
They did not
Its absolutely not
Its absolutely not
This is not true
This is not true
https://www.axios.com/2026/06/17/iran-deal-signing-text-release no agreement signed yet... Why do we have 15th of june about to go yes?
https://www.axios.com/2026/06/17/iran-deal-signing-text-release no agreement signed yet... Why do we have 15th of june about to go yes?
See later Trump tweet, he says the blockade will end AFTER the signing. A blockade is a military operation and this is ongoing. This the agreement is NOT adopted as of yet.
See later Trump tweet, he says the blockade will end AFTER the signing. A blockade is a military operation and this is ongoing. This the agreement is NOT adopted as of yet.
But its not adopted. as blockade is ongoing until after signing. This is a military operation
But its not adopted. as blockade is ongoing until after signing. This is a military operation
With the blockade ongoing it's clearly not adopted. A blockade is an act of war.
With the blockade ongoing it's clearly not adopted. A blockade is an act of war.
'The United States and Iran each sign or formally adopt a written agreement (e.g. a treaty or multi-point agreement) which meets the above criteria.' Signing happens 19th of june, so no. Is it adopted? NO Straight opens AFTER signing (see trump tweet). Bl;ockade is ongoing which is a hostile act. NO until after signing
'The United States and Iran each sign or formally adopt a written agreement (e.g. a treaty or multi-point agreement) which meets the above criteria.' Signing happens 19th of june, so no. Is it adopted? NO Straight opens AFTER signing (see trump tweet). Bl;ockade is ongoing which is a hostile act. NO until after signing
'The United States and Iran each sign or formally adopt a written agreement (e.g. a treaty or multi-point agreement) which meets the above criteria.' Signing happens 19th of june, so no. Is it adopted? NO Straight opens AFTER signing (see trump tweet). Bl;ockade is ongoing which is a hostile act. NO until after signing
'The United States and Iran each sign or formally adopt a written agreement (e.g. a treaty or multi-point agreement) which meets the above criteria.' Signing happens 19th of june, so no. Is it adopted? NO Straight opens AFTER signing (see trump tweet). Bl;ockade is ongoing which is a hostile act. NO until after signing
Holding
Holding
https://x.com/i/status/2063693592686694724
https://x.com/i/status/2063693592686694724
New agreements count, but only if they extend. This One does not
New agreements count, but only if they extend. This One does not
There is a new agreement buts its no extension
There is a new agreement buts its no extension
It should, but PM made a major mistake with a rule adding clarification. Now they have to resolve it and pay out yes holder prior to the rule change aswell or there will be a major legal battle and loss of face for PM
It should, but PM made a major mistake with a rule adding clarification. Now they have to resolve it and pay out yes holder prior to the rule change aswell or there will be a major legal battle and loss of face for PM
https://x.com/i/status/2061736962890117229
https://x.com/i/status/2061736962890117229
Another thing. Even if the may 31st would be the deadline of the evidence - the date of the filing was actually 30st of may - see screenshot from 8K here. The filing therefore predates the deadline Image
Another thing. Even if the may 31st would be the deadline of the evidence - the date of the filing was actually 30st of may - see screenshot from 8K here. The filing therefore predates the deadline Image
p2 - I proof of 32 BTC leaving MS wallet
p2 - I proof of 32 BTC leaving MS wallet
We have new evidence on chain before the deadline, flipit.
We have new evidence on chain before the deadline, flipit.
Agreed
Agreed
People here are to stupid to read? but betting on markets. the argument is very easy, they sold before may 31st - Yes!
People here are to stupid to read? but betting on markets. the argument is very easy, they sold before may 31st - Yes!
It has to go yes, otherwise you have to imagine rules: P2 — Yes The rule is unambiguous about what the resolving event is: "This market will resolve to 'Yes' if MicroStrategy sells any of its Bitcoin by 11:59 PM ET on the date specified in the title. Otherwise, this market will resolve to 'No'." The deadline (May 31, 11:59 PM ET) applies to the sale, not to the disclosure of the sale. The rule says nothing — anywhere — requiring confirmation, announcement, or reporting to occur before the deadline. That is the entire question. Read it again: the verb governed by the deadline is "sells," not "announces" or "is confirmed to have sold." MSTR's 8-K filed June 1 (covering the period May 26–31) confirms the company sold 32 BTC during the market's timeframe. The event the market asks about happened inside the window. That is dispositive. On the "no late evidence" precedent: The cited MicroStrategy purchase markets are not analogous, because Polymarket explicitly added a bulletin-board clarification to those markets converting them into announcement markets: "This market will resolve based on announcements made within the market's designated time frame regardless of when the actual purchases were made." This market has no such clause. That clarification exists precisely because, by default, these markets resolve on the event, not the announcement — Polymarket had to override the default to make the purchase markets announcement-based. The absence of that override here means the default applies: what matters is whether the sale occurred in the window, which it did. You cannot import a special clause from a different market that was added specifically to change its meaning. On "holding the market hostage": This is not a market being kept open speculatively hoping evidence appears. The sale already happened in May; the 8-K simply documents an event that is now a matter of fact and is the market's own designated primary resolution source ("information from MSTR"). Using MSTR's filing is not "late evidence" — it is the resolution source the rules point to, confirming an event squarely inside the timeframe. A "No" resolution would require reading a reporting deadline into the rules that simply is not written. The sale occurred by May 31. P2 — Yes.
It has to go yes, otherwise you have to imagine rules: P2 — Yes The rule is unambiguous about what the resolving event is: "This market will resolve to 'Yes' if MicroStrategy sells any of its Bitcoin by 11:59 PM ET on the date specified in the title. Otherwise, this market will resolve to 'No'." The deadline (May 31, 11:59 PM ET) applies to the sale, not to the disclosure of the sale. The rule says nothing — anywhere — requiring confirmation, announcement, or reporting to occur before the deadline. That is the entire question. Read it again: the verb governed by the deadline is "sells," not "announces" or "is confirmed to have sold." MSTR's 8-K filed June 1 (covering the period May 26–31) confirms the company sold 32 BTC during the market's timeframe. The event the market asks about happened inside the window. That is dispositive. On the "no late evidence" precedent: The cited MicroStrategy purchase markets are not analogous, because Polymarket explicitly added a bulletin-board clarification to those markets converting them into announcement markets: "This market will resolve based on announcements made within the market's designated time frame regardless of when the actual purchases were made." This market has no such clause. That clarification exists precisely because, by default, these markets resolve on the event, not the announcement — Polymarket had to override the default to make the purchase markets announcement-based. The absence of that override here means the default applies: what matters is whether the sale occurred in the window, which it did. You cannot import a special clause from a different market that was added specifically to change its meaning. On "holding the market hostage": This is not a market being kept open speculatively hoping evidence appears. The sale already happened in May; the 8-K simply documents an event that is now a matter of fact and is the market's own designated primary resolution source ("information from MSTR"). Using MSTR's filing is not "late evidence" — it is the resolution source the rules point to, confirming an event squarely inside the timeframe. A "No" resolution would require reading a reporting deadline into the rules that simply is not written. The sale occurred by May 31. P2 — Yes.