KalshiChange immaterial rules summary
Change immaterial rules summary
SJ参与话题 23消息总数 883
该用户的聊天记录定位。
聊天记录
共 883 条，显示第 551-600 条In DMs yeah
In DMs yeah
<person> was subjectively used!
<person> was subjectively used!
Definitely none!
Definitely none!
Which source agency had Trump saying "Argentina"?
Which source agency had Trump saying "Argentina"?
Highly subjective!
Highly subjective!
Let's just add "If a consensus of credible reporting indicates the underlying unambiguously occured, Kalshi has the right to resolve 'Yes'"
Let's just add "If a consensus of credible reporting indicates the underlying unambiguously occured, Kalshi has the right to resolve 'Yes'"
That makes no sense
That makes no sense
Really?
Really?
It's fine
It's fine
It's just an agreement
It's just an agreement
Just no "strike"/"kill", we really should be able to have peace agreement/ceasefire tbh
Just no "strike"/"kill", we really should be able to have peace agreement/ceasefire tbh
Yeah it's very ambiguous to what point it's related enough, so let's just allow everything!
Yeah it's very ambiguous to what point it's related enough, so let's just allow everything!
Just need WTI perp on Kalshi with giga-liq PLEASE!!!!!!
Just need WTI perp on Kalshi with giga-liq PLEASE!!!!!!
On strikes and such, but simply because it's a direct question it's taboo
On strikes and such, but simply because it's a direct question it's taboo
People make way more with oil
People make way more with oil
It's just funny because
It's just funny because
Let's just amend CEA to allow war bets
Let's just amend CEA to allow war bets
Focus on sports mentions
Focus on sports mentions
He was never nominated or announced to be anything.
He was never nominated or announced to be anything.
Weird psy op
Weird psy op
No 3-0 comeback bonders sweating. It's happening.
No 3-0 comeback bonders sweating. It's happening.
2-3-2 format is so dumb
2-3-2 format is so dumb
Trump was watching heat spurs game 6 and tweeted and then historic moment happened
Trump was watching heat spurs game 6 and tweeted and then historic moment happened
Who can fly above in Manhattan
Who can fly above in Manhattan
Mog N?
Mog N?
All dulls on no so
All dulls on no so
Okay I actually don't think I'm beating that, the 20k is doable but that's crazy tier
Okay I actually don't think I'm beating that, the 20k is doable but that's crazy tier
CSP
CSP
Fr fr, right? Need to play if so
Fr fr, right? Need to play if so
Lucky timing for Kalshi
Lucky timing for Kalshi
But world cup ig
But world cup ig
No NHL, NFL, NBA
No NHL, NFL, NBA
Crine Kalshi about to die
Crine Kalshi about to die
Just declare bankruptcy and start at 0 again!
Just declare bankruptcy and start at 0 again!
Let's go!
Let's go!
Fr fr
Fr fr
Back to playing
Back to playing
Then no one refutes such (as you can’t prove he didn’t go to secret box upstairs later)
Then no one refutes such (as you can’t prove he didn’t go to secret box upstairs later)
List of Super Bowl attendees: Jason Kelce, etc.
List of Super Bowl attendees: Jason Kelce, etc.
Hypothetical
Hypothetical
If someone reports Jason Kelce was *at* the Super Bowl (without specifying he actually was there before the start of the game thus not counting), even if another source disagrees and shows he wasn't there during the game we should count it!
If someone reports Jason Kelce was *at* the Super Bowl (without specifying he actually was there before the start of the game thus not counting), even if another source disagrees and shows he wasn't there during the game we should count it!
Let's just interpret it to reality lfg lfg
Let's just interpret it to reality lfg lfg
"attend" means he was at the NYC showing I think. Easy N.
"attend" means he was at the NYC showing I think. Easy N.
He attended game 2 in NYC. Lfg.
He attended game 2 in NYC. Lfg.
Common sense bro
Common sense bro
🧌
🧌
Source agencies conflicted, thus it goes no, EASY!
Source agencies conflicted, thus it goes no, EASY!
Rules summary should should just be: If <person> attends <event> as documented by Source Agencies, this market will resolve Yes, otherwise it will resolve No
Rules summary should should just be: If <person> attends <event> as documented by Source Agencies, this market will resolve Yes, otherwise it will resolve No
However, they should modify their stupid immaterial rules summary
However, they should modify their stupid immaterial rules summary