Polymarketmy thinking was that the odds that they don't show, plus odds that they meet a bit early, should be decently high
my thinking was that the odds that they don't show, plus odds that they meet a bit early, should be decently high
aenews参与话题 18消息总数 900
该用户的聊天记录定位。
聊天记录
共 900 条，显示第 301-350 条really was just cheap ah well
really was just cheap ah well
damn I was thinking to buy N there
damn I was thinking to buy N there
Nope, incorrect. > 11 — The United States of America undertakes to make fully available for use the frozen or restricted funds and assets of the Islamic Republic of Iran **upon the implementation of this MOU.**
Nope, incorrect. > 11 — The United States of America undertakes to make fully available for use the frozen or restricted funds and assets of the Islamic Republic of Iran **upon the implementation of this MOU.**
That'll be addressed in a future final deal
That'll be addressed in a future final deal
> 10 — The United States of America undertakes that **immediately upon the signing of this MOU and until the termination of sanctions**, US Department of Treasury will issue waivers for the export of Iranian crude oil, petroleum products and derivatives, and all associated services, including banking transactions, insurances, transportation, etc.
> 10 — The United States of America undertakes that **immediately upon the signing of this MOU and until the termination of sanctions**, US Department of Treasury will issue waivers for the export of Iranian crude oil, petroleum products and derivatives, and all associated services, including banking transactions, insurances, transportation, etc.
This only undermines your point. The troop withdrawal is not directly committed to even in the MOU, which makes it a far weaker claim.
This only undermines your point. The troop withdrawal is not directly committed to even in the MOU, which makes it a far weaker claim.
Yes
Yes
The other points are direct and say upon signing of the MOU, that they take effect. Those are quite clear. The troop withdrawal is indirect and depends on a future final deal. Purely a question of how indirect is too indirect to Polymarket.
The other points are direct and say upon signing of the MOU, that they take effect. Those are quite clear. The troop withdrawal is indirect and depends on a future final deal. Purely a question of how indirect is too indirect to Polymarket.
Your argument is that they commit to making a deal later and they commit to withdrawing troops if they make a deal later. Seems a real stretch to me
Your argument is that they commit to making a deal later and they commit to withdrawing troops if they make a deal later. Seems a real stretch to me
I don't think it is definite. > Agreement refers to an explicit acceptance, authorization or consent to the specified action The US will not withdraw troops without further negotiations and a new deal. Whereas there are a lot of demands that are implemented immediately or phased in immediately.
I don't think it is definite. > Agreement refers to an explicit acceptance, authorization or consent to the specified action The US will not withdraw troops without further negotiations and a new deal. Whereas there are a lot of demands that are implemented immediately or phased in immediately.
personally I think rules are clear
personally I think rules are clear
I think FV is 50/50
I think FV is 50/50
should I all in too lmao
should I all in too lmao
oh shit I forgot
oh shit I forgot
but that's funny
but that's funny
I nuked cause I haven't been getting fills
I nuked cause I haven't been getting fills
you're joking
you're joking
ain't no way
ain't no way
No. I'm using the text of the MOU. I provided 4 cases where it is direct, including 2 resolved markets. I also pasted the rules clause which excludes this case for troops.
No. I'm using the text of the MOU. I provided 4 cases where it is direct, including 2 resolved markets. I also pasted the rules clause which excludes this case for troops.
Where is the direct commitment to withdraw troops? Troop withdrawal is being punted to a future agreement. It isn't covered under the MOU.
Where is the direct commitment to withdraw troops? Troop withdrawal is being punted to a future agreement. It isn't covered under the MOU.
Purely bought right now to get in on the fight because it's a clear No. I was zeroed out before minutes ago as I didn't think UMA would agree. But Polymarket clarification should be more balanced and could be either side.
Purely bought right now to get in on the fight because it's a clear No. I was zeroed out before minutes ago as I didn't think UMA would agree. But Polymarket clarification should be more balanced and could be either side.
Because troop withdrawal here is not part of the MOU, it's subject to future negotiation and a nuclear deal. > Agreement refers to an explicit acceptance, authorization or consent to the specified action. **Only announcements of definitive agreement will qualify. Suggestions, negotiations, expressions of openness, or other non-definitive statements will not qualify.**
Because troop withdrawal here is not part of the MOU, it's subject to future negotiation and a nuclear deal. > Agreement refers to an explicit acceptance, authorization or consent to the specified action. **Only announcements of definitive agreement will qualify. Suggestions, negotiations, expressions of openness, or other non-definitive statements will not qualify.**
awesome, ty
awesome, ty
uh ok
uh ok
all your N friends already packed it up Thonker
all your N friends already packed it up Thonker
why would they waste their time clarifying a market at 99.8c
why would they waste their time clarifying a market at 99.8c
schizo
schizo
stop being shizo
stop being shizo
apologies bos, I got one more for ya, a big important one Spider-Man: Brand New Day Opening Weekend <200 200-220 220-240 240-260 260-280 >280
apologies bos, I got one more for ya, a big important one Spider-Man: Brand New Day Opening Weekend <200 200-220 220-240 240-260 260-280 >280
Yes
Yes
yeah he occasionally goes schizo on markets, he thinks super obvious but only a minority agree with him like MIGA
yeah he occasionally goes schizo on markets, he thinks super obvious but only a minority agree with him like MIGA
CNN, Barak/Axios, Elysee, NYP
CNN, Barak/Axios, Elysee, NYP
I can already smell the clarification
I can already smell the clarification
I don't even rlly have shares anymore, but it's pretty clear
I don't even rlly have shares anymore, but it's pretty clear
Barak reported that Trump signed it and a photo was taken
Barak reported that Trump signed it and a photo was taken
It was electronic/remote, but Trump signed a paper copy (and sent a photo)
It was electronic/remote, but Trump signed a paper copy (and sent a photo)
<:frenchie:846264415425921044>
<:frenchie:846264415425921044>
yeah pretty bad take from Bernard
yeah pretty bad take from Bernard
??? We have 3 sources reporting it
??? We have 3 sources reporting it
you are going schizo again
you are going schizo again
I read it once or twice, plus all the times spammed here
I read it once or twice, plus all the times spammed here
Different resolution pathway obviously
Different resolution pathway obviously
awesome, thanks bos
awesome, thanks bos
(unrelated to this convo)
(unrelated to this convo)
any update for the box office ones suggested 3 this morn
any update for the box office ones suggested 3 this morn
I'd like it if Polymarket were to rule one way or the other on this
I'd like it if Polymarket were to rule one way or the other on this
1 is counted, 2 is arguable, 3 doesn't count We're basically just arguing whether this can count as definitive, or not.
1 is counted, 2 is arguable, 3 doesn't count We're basically just arguing whether this can count as definitive, or not.
the third is precisely what shouldn't count
the third is precisely what shouldn't count
in your opinion
in your opinion