Polymarketwhich side
which side
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 351-400 条No, that is phrased as immediate and permanent. It's a commitment in the MOU (that again, Iran specifically called for). Troop withdrawal is only mentioned as a point to be negotiated in the final deal with no commitment at all for the MOU.
No, that is phrased as immediate and permanent. It's a commitment in the MOU (that again, Iran specifically called for). Troop withdrawal is only mentioned as a point to be negotiated in the final deal with no commitment at all for the MOU.
wdym As you can see, other terms are committed to in the MOU like sanction relief and funds unfreezing (which was a big sticking point for Iran) and an immediate end to the conflict on all fronts. Troops isn't on the slate for the MOU, it's punted to the final agreement.
wdym As you can see, other terms are committed to in the MOU like sanction relief and funds unfreezing (which was a big sticking point for Iran) and an immediate end to the conflict on all fronts. Troops isn't on the slate for the MOU, it's punted to the final agreement.
Fair. So basically, we just basically need to determine this case and whether it's definitive or not. There are definitely arguments both sides. I just don't see the phrasing in MOU as definitive in regards to troops. It's a point that US is acknowledging will be negotiated in the final deal, no promises or commitments are made at the moment.
Fair. So basically, we just basically need to determine this case and whether it's definitive or not. There are definitely arguments both sides. I just don't see the phrasing in MOU as definitive in regards to troops. It's a point that US is acknowledging will be negotiated in the final deal, no promises or commitments are made at the moment.
Do you at least agree this is different from unfreeze and sanctions relief?
Do you at least agree this is different from unfreeze and sanctions relief?
I didn't think so, but was confused by price being 90c. I have to look into it.
I didn't think so, but was confused by price being 90c. I have to look into it.
I showed you exactly how this differs from unfreeze and sanction relief. Those are predicated on the MOU itself. Troops has no definitive commitment at all, simply open to withdrawing depending on negotiations for a final deal.
I showed you exactly how this differs from unfreeze and sanction relief. Those are predicated on the MOU itself. Troops has no definitive commitment at all, simply open to withdrawing depending on negotiations for a final 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. It's not definitive, it's part of the negotiations for final deal within 60 days. The US is open to withdrawing depending on negotiations.
> 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. It's not definitive, it's part of the negotiations for final deal within 60 days. The US is open to withdrawing depending on negotiations.
troops will be negotiated in the 60 days, not decided in the MOU, it is quite different from unfreeze
troops will be negotiated in the 60 days, not decided in the MOU, it is quite different from unfreeze
nope
nope
It is obviously very different, e.g. the below are not conditional Sanction Relief > 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. Unfreeze > 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.
It is obviously very different, e.g. the below are not conditional Sanction Relief > 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. Unfreeze > 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.
yeah, it's the only market-relevant clause that is truly conditional
yeah, it's the only market-relevant clause that is truly conditional
> 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.
> 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.
was this copypasta or serious
was this copypasta or serious
which
which
ok bro
ok bro
too many markets, too few brain cells
too many markets, too few brain cells
😂 everyone has at least one bad opinion
😂 everyone has at least one bad opinion
everyone would lose
everyone would lose
Yes, obviously
Yes, obviously
If I say, aenews along with his allies in Poly Alpha declare that Market X is a N, and denizz says naw it's a Y, was denizz party to the agreement? Israel was literally trying to blow up the agreement. They denied being a party. They are mentioned insofar as the US exerting their influence to satisfy Iranian demands.
If I say, aenews along with his allies in Poly Alpha declare that Market X is a N, and denizz says naw it's a Y, was denizz party to the agreement? Israel was literally trying to blow up the agreement. They denied being a party. They are mentioned insofar as the US exerting their influence to satisfy Iranian demands.
yeah fair take
yeah fair take
both US and Iran denying would not prevent consensus yeah though you still need the consensus part to qualify like this
both US and Iran denying would not prevent consensus yeah though you still need the consensus part to qualify like this
yeah I'm, again, just saying it's obviously reflective of the signed version (talking reality not resolution) the statement does not contradict this as the MOU has been changing since the original signing
yeah I'm, again, just saying it's obviously reflective of the signed version (talking reality not resolution) the statement does not contradict this as the MOU has been changing since the original signing
smart
smart
Who claimed it's an old draft
Who claimed it's an old draft
*portion*
*portion*
Not even saying it counts, just saying it obviously reflects what was signed on the 14th. It's rarely a great idea to bond against reality.
Not even saying it counts, just saying it obviously reflects what was signed on the 14th. It's rarely a great idea to bond against reality.
> The US official told CNN that the text reflects the agreement signed digitally by President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance and Iranian parliamentary speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf on Sunday.
> The US official told CNN that the text reflects the agreement signed digitally by President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance and Iranian parliamentary speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf on Sunday.
hm
hm
seems pretty obvious what we have reflects the signed version on 14 and subsequent drafts
seems pretty obvious what we have reflects the signed version on 14 and subsequent drafts
fill me at 19c tbh
fill me at 19c tbh
well seems kinda cooked still makes sense to buy low tho
well seems kinda cooked still makes sense to buy low tho
as nsc clarification
as nsc clarification
P1 No
P1 No
never fade nsc
never fade nsc
These would be good to get up today
These would be good to get up today
<@941405798096076880> <@1212792946341183578> <@1272383282687905939> Toy Story 5 Domestic Total June 30 <350 350-371 371-392 392-413 >413 Obsession 6th Weekend <14 14-15 15-16 16-17 >17 Supergirl Opening Weekend <52 52-58 58-64 64-70 >70
<@941405798096076880> <@1212792946341183578> <@1272383282687905939> Toy Story 5 Domestic Total June 30 <350 350-371 371-392 392-413 >413 Obsession 6th Weekend <14 14-15 15-16 16-17 >17 Supergirl Opening Weekend <52 52-58 58-64 64-70 >70
Polymarket should optimally just clarify anything contentious tho
Polymarket should optimally just clarify anything contentious tho
No, this is good. Traders don't have significant UMA. Same folks who've had UMA for years still have it.
No, this is good. Traders don't have significant UMA. Same folks who've had UMA for years still have it.
no he's free
no he's free
UMA/RL staff, former staff, early investors basically have had the majority of tokens for years even with low market price, you can't buy what isn't available on market
UMA/RL staff, former staff, early investors basically have had the majority of tokens for years even with low market price, you can't buy what isn't available on market
UMA Staff owns it, not possible unless they put it up for sale
UMA Staff owns it, not possible unless they put it up for sale
BOSAURUM WILL NOT RUG
BOSAURUM WILL NOT RUG
500K let's GET IT
500K let's GET IT
I would like to buy 100K more at 93c, booked?
I would like to buy 100K more at 93c, booked?
https://tenor.com/view/jessicadicelinkss-izzy-bestie-groundhogjessica-jessica-gif-1975219242321144054
https://tenor.com/view/jessicadicelinkss-izzy-bestie-groundhogjessica-jessica-gif-1975219242321144054
**P2 Yes** > IRANIAN DEPUTY FOREIGN MINISTER: **THE IMMEDIATE AND PERMANENT END TO THE WAR AND MILITARY OPERATIONS ON VARIOUS FRONTS**, INCLUDING LEBANON, WILL BE ANNOUNCED STARTING TONIGHT > Prime Minister of Pakistan Sharif: "After intensive talks, we are pleased to announce that a peace agreement has been reached between the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran. **Both parties have declared an immediate and permanent cessation of military activity on all fronts**, including in Lebanon. The official signing ceremony will take place on Friday, June 19, in Switzerland." Both Pakistani and Iranian statements confirming the agreement clearly indicate a permanent end to the war, directly satisfying the phrasing required by the market. > A permanent peace deal refers to any agreement which explicitly indicates that military hostilities between the United States and Iran have ended or will permanently cease We also have a wide swath of credible reporting that affirms an end to the war. > The US and Iran have agreed to end their four-month war and reopen the Strait of Hormuz. As ever, ending wars is not as easy as starting them. -Reuters > The US and Iran have agreed a deal to end the war, which mediator Pakistan says will be signed on Friday in Switzerland - BBC > An agreement has been reached between the United States and Iran to end fighting and reopen the Strait of Hormuz, according to President Donald Trump and Iranian officials. -NBC https://polymarket.com/event/us-iran-nuclear-deal-by-june-30 The US-Iran nuclear deal market with similarly stringent rules also already resolved YES. There is no world where the nuclear deal (which requires an agreement) resolves YES and permanent peace somehow does not.
**P2 Yes** > IRANIAN DEPUTY FOREIGN MINISTER: **THE IMMEDIATE AND PERMANENT END TO THE WAR AND MILITARY OPERATIONS ON VARIOUS FRONTS**, INCLUDING LEBANON, WILL BE ANNOUNCED STARTING TONIGHT > Prime Minister of Pakistan Sharif: "After intensive talks, we are pleased to announce that a peace agreement has been reached between the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran. **Both parties have declared an immediate and permanent cessation of military activity on all fronts**, including in Lebanon. The official signing ceremony will take place on Friday, June 19, in Switzerland." Both Pakistani and Iranian statements confirming the agreement clearly indicate a permanent end to the war, directly satisfying the phrasing required by the market. > A permanent peace deal refers to any agreement which explicitly indicates that military hostilities between the United States and Iran have ended or will permanently cease We also have a wide swath of credible reporting that affirms an end to the war. > The US and Iran have agreed to end their four-month war and reopen the Strait of Hormuz. As ever, ending wars is not as easy as starting them. -Reuters > The US and Iran have agreed a deal to end the war, which mediator Pakistan says will be signed on Friday in Switzerland - BBC > An agreement has been reached between the United States and Iran to end fighting and reopen the Strait of Hormuz, according to President Donald Trump and Iranian officials. -NBC https://polymarket.com/event/us-iran-nuclear-deal-by-june-30 The US-Iran nuclear deal market with similarly stringent rules also already resolved YES. There is no world where the nuclear deal (which requires an agreement) resolves YES and permanent peace somehow does not.
Both Pakistani and Iranian statements explicitly state **permanent** end, which is exactly the phrasing the market requires. Trump affirmed the deal clearly, and he did separately also say the war was over.
Both Pakistani and Iranian statements explicitly state **permanent** end, which is exactly the phrasing the market requires. Trump affirmed the deal clearly, and he did separately also say the war was over.
both
both