聊天记录
共 93 条，显示第 1-50 条
-Market Title
Will Trump talk to Mojtaba Khamenei before 2027?
-Outcomes
Yes
No
-Market Description
A talk is defined as any interaction between Mojtaba Khamenei and Donald Trump, occurring either in person or through verbal communication by phone or video call.
This market will resolve to "Yes" if Mojtaba Khamenei talks with Donald Trump by June 30, 2026, 11:59 PM ET. Otherwise, it will resolve to "No".
-Resolution source
The resolution source will be a consensus of credible reporting.
-Market Title
Will Trump talk to Mojtaba Khamenei before 2027?
-Outcomes
Yes
No
-Market Description
A talk is defined as any interaction between Mojtaba Khamenei and Donald Trump, occurring either in person or through verbal communication by phone or video call.
This market will resolve to "Yes" if Mojtaba Khamenei talks with Donald Trump by June 30, 2026, 11:59 PM ET. Otherwise, it will resolve to "No".
-Resolution source
The resolution source will be a consensus of credible reporting.
-Market Title
Will Trump talk to Mojtaba Khamenei before 2027?
-Outcomes
Yes
No
-Market Description
A talk is defined as any interaction between Mojtaba Khamenei and Donald Trump, occurring either in person or through verbal communication by phone or video call.
This market will resolve to "Yes" if Mojtaba Khamenei talks with Donald Trump by June 30, 2026, 11:59 PM ET. Otherwise, it will resolve to "No".
-Resolution source
The resolution source will be a consensus of credible reporting.
-Market Title
Will Trump talk to Mojtaba Khamenei before 2027?
-Outcomes
Yes
No
-Market Description
A talk is defined as any interaction between Mojtaba Khamenei and Donald Trump, occurring either in person or through verbal communication by phone or video call.
This market will resolve to "Yes" if Mojtaba Khamenei talks with Donald Trump by June 30, 2026, 11:59 PM ET. Otherwise, it will resolve to "No".
-Resolution source
The resolution source will be a consensus of credible reporting.
Can we renew this market for end of year please?
Will Trump talk to Mojtaba Khamenei by...? https://polymarket.com/event/will-trump-talk-to-mojtaba-khamenei-by-march-31
Can we renew this market for end of year please?
Will Trump talk to Mojtaba Khamenei by...? https://polymarket.com/event/will-trump-talk-to-mojtaba-khamenei-by-march-31
No, Reuters June 18 is specifically about the interim deal and the 60-day window.
> “Trump’s interim deal outlines only a general path toward curbing Iran’s nuclear activities, with no specific commitments from Tehran other than to discuss nuclear issues in the 60-day window.”
That is not “after the final agreement.” That is the interim period (RIGHT NOW).
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/how-trumps-deal-with-iran-compares-obamas-2026-06-18/
Same with Araghchi: he says enrichment and stockpiles are stage 2 issues and no decisions were made.
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/us-israel-iran-war/irans-foreign-minister-details-proposed-memorandum-with-us-says-war-would-end-across-all-fronts/3965675
So your split does not work. The actual interim commitment is undefined “status quo,” while the specific enrichment issue is left to talks. You are interpreting status quo as zero enrichment, but the MOU does not define it that way and Reuters June 18 says there are no specific Iranian nuclear commitments except talks.
The fact that this is ambigous (which even you can't deny) shows that this is NOT P2, at least not yet.
No, Reuters June 18 is specifically about the interim deal and the 60-day window.
> “Trump’s interim deal outlines only a general path toward curbing Iran’s nuclear activities, with no specific commitments from Tehran other than to discuss nuclear issues in the 60-day window.”
That is not “after the final agreement.” That is the interim period (RIGHT NOW).
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/how-trumps-deal-with-iran-compares-obamas-2026-06-18/
Same with Araghchi: he says enrichment and stockpiles are stage 2 issues and no decisions were made.
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/us-israel-iran-war/irans-foreign-minister-details-proposed-memorandum-with-us-says-war-would-end-across-all-fronts/3965675
So your split does not work. The actual interim commitment is undefined “status quo,” while the specific enrichment issue is left to talks. You are interpreting status quo as zero enrichment, but the MOU does not define it that way and Reuters June 18 says there are no specific Iranian nuclear commitments except talks.
The fact that this is ambigous (which even you can't deny) shows that this is NOT P2, at least not yet.
> Carnegie is the one notable counter-source
Not true. **Reuters June 18, AP, Anadolu/Tasnim quoting Araghchi, and IAEA/Grossi all support P4.**
Reuters June 18:
> “no specific commitments from Tehran other than to discuss nuclear issues in the 60-day window”
> https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/how-trumps-deal-with-iran-compares-obamas-2026-06-18/
AP headline:
> “Iran's nuclear program still must be negotiated after initial deal”
> https://apnews.com/article/trump-iran-war-nuclear-talks-d8e5c8ada80c35446d4194201d9a7502
Anadolu quoting Araghchi:
> “no final decisions have yet been made on uranium enrichment levels or Iran’s enriched uranium stockpiles”
> https://www.aa.com.tr/en/us-israel-iran-war/irans-foreign-minister-details-proposed-memorandum-with-us-says-war-would-end-across-all-fronts/3965675
Tasnim quoting Araghchi:
> “sensitive topics, including the nuclear issue featuring uranium enrichment and highly-enriched uranium, have been postponed to the second stage”
> https://www.tasnimnews.ir/en/news/2026/06/13/3615445/iran-us-understanding-possible-not-final-yet-fm
So this is not “Carnegie vs consensus.” Multiple sources say enrichment is still being negotiated / deferred / not finally decided.
Your sources show some people interpreting “status quo” as a freeze. That is not the same as Iran publicly agreeing to end all enrichment.
P2 needs a qualifying pledge. What we have is undefined status quo + enrichment deferred to final deal. Aka P4.
> Carnegie is the one notable counter-source
Not true. **Reuters June 18, AP, Anadolu/Tasnim quoting Araghchi, and IAEA/Grossi all support P4.**
Reuters June 18:
> “no specific commitments from Tehran other than to discuss nuclear issues in the 60-day window”
> https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/how-trumps-deal-with-iran-compares-obamas-2026-06-18/
AP headline:
> “Iran's nuclear program still must be negotiated after initial deal”
> https://apnews.com/article/trump-iran-war-nuclear-talks-d8e5c8ada80c35446d4194201d9a7502
Anadolu quoting Araghchi:
> “no final decisions have yet been made on uranium enrichment levels or Iran’s enriched uranium stockpiles”
> https://www.aa.com.tr/en/us-israel-iran-war/irans-foreign-minister-details-proposed-memorandum-with-us-says-war-would-end-across-all-fronts/3965675
Tasnim quoting Araghchi:
> “sensitive topics, including the nuclear issue featuring uranium enrichment and highly-enriched uranium, have been postponed to the second stage”
> https://www.tasnimnews.ir/en/news/2026/06/13/3615445/iran-us-understanding-possible-not-final-yet-fm
So this is not “Carnegie vs consensus.” Multiple sources say enrichment is still being negotiated / deferred / not finally decided.
Your sources show some people interpreting “status quo” as a freeze. That is not the same as Iran publicly agreeing to end all enrichment.
P2 needs a qualifying pledge. What we have is undefined status quo + enrichment deferred to final deal. Aka P4.
Status quo = NOT ending enrichment, as I proved already.
Status quo = NOT ending enrichment, as I proved already.
Denizz typing, watch him ignore my breakdown of his stupid argument once again
Denizz typing, watch him ignore my breakdown of his stupid argument once again
This still assumes the exact thing it needs to prove.
> Actual enrichment activity during the interim MOU period: frozen under the status quo clause.
No. The MOU says “status quo of its nuclear program.” It does not define that as “Iran publicly agrees to end all enrichment.” That is an interpretation.
> Only the third issue matters for this market.
Also no. The market is not about actual activity. It is about whether Iran publicly agreed to end all enrichment. Even if Iran is currently not enriching, that is not the same as a qualifying pledge.
The problem for P2 is that the actual MOU separates Clause 8 and Clause 9. Clause 8 says the parties will “discuss the issue of enrichment” in the final deal. Clause 9 says maintain status quo. If Clause 9 already meant a clear zero enrichment pledge, Clause 8 would not leave “the issue of enrichment” unresolved.
Reuters June 18 also says the deal has “no specific commitments from Tehran other than to discuss nuclear issues in the 60-day window.”
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/how-trumps-deal-with-iran-compares-obamas-2026-06-18/
So no, this is not confusion between 3 issues. The P2 side is confusing an undefined status quo clause with a public Iranian pledge to end all enrichment.
That is exactly why this is P4.
This still assumes the exact thing it needs to prove.
> Actual enrichment activity during the interim MOU period: frozen under the status quo clause.
No. The MOU says “status quo of its nuclear program.” It does not define that as “Iran publicly agrees to end all enrichment.” That is an interpretation.
> Only the third issue matters for this market.
Also no. The market is not about actual activity. It is about whether Iran publicly agreed to end all enrichment. Even if Iran is currently not enriching, that is not the same as a qualifying pledge.
The problem for P2 is that the actual MOU separates Clause 8 and Clause 9. Clause 8 says the parties will “discuss the issue of enrichment” in the final deal. Clause 9 says maintain status quo. If Clause 9 already meant a clear zero enrichment pledge, Clause 8 would not leave “the issue of enrichment” unresolved.
Reuters June 18 also says the deal has “no specific commitments from Tehran other than to discuss nuclear issues in the 60-day window.”
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/how-trumps-deal-with-iran-compares-obamas-2026-06-18/
So no, this is not confusion between 3 issues. The P2 side is confusing an undefined status quo clause with a public Iranian pledge to end all enrichment.
That is exactly why this is P4.
<@1178665239173140504>, I repeat:
You’re assuming the key part:
> status quo = no enrichment
But the MOU does not define status quo that way. The same MOU separately says:
> the parties agree to “discuss the issue of enrichment” in the final Deal
If enrichment was already clearly ended by the status quo clause, there would be no reason to leave “the issue of enrichment” for the final deal.
Reuters June 18 also says:
> “no specific commitments from Tehran other than to discuss nuclear issues in the 60-day window”
So your case is not a public Iranian pledge to end all enrichment. It is an interpretation of an undefined clause.
P2 needs a qualifying pledge. Undefined status quo + enrichment left for later talks = P4.
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/14-point-draft-us-iran-deal-2026-06-17/
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/how-trumps-deal-with-iran-compares-obamas-2026-06-18/
<@1178665239173140504>, I repeat:
You’re assuming the key part:
> status quo = no enrichment
But the MOU does not define status quo that way. The same MOU separately says:
> the parties agree to “discuss the issue of enrichment” in the final Deal
If enrichment was already clearly ended by the status quo clause, there would be no reason to leave “the issue of enrichment” for the final deal.
Reuters June 18 also says:
> “no specific commitments from Tehran other than to discuss nuclear issues in the 60-day window”
So your case is not a public Iranian pledge to end all enrichment. It is an interpretation of an undefined clause.
P2 needs a qualifying pledge. Undefined status quo + enrichment left for later talks = P4.
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/14-point-draft-us-iran-deal-2026-06-17/
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/how-trumps-deal-with-iran-compares-obamas-2026-06-18/
All of them have been broken down here already.
All of them have been broken down here already.
<@1289090798238957581> Your first sentence is the whole problem:
> Iran committed to freeze enrichment for 60+ days.
That is not what the MOU says. It says Iran will maintain the current status quo of its nuclear program. It does not define that as zero enrichment, and it does not say Iran agrees to end all enrichment.
The actual enrichment clause says enrichment will be discussed in the final deal.
Reuters June 18:
> “no specific commitments from Tehran other than to discuss nuclear issues in the 60-day window”
Anadolu quotes Araghchi:
> “no final decisions” on uranium enrichment levels or stockpiles
Carnegie:
> “the document’s failure to define the status quo creates problems”
So the most you have is: some reporting/commentary interprets status quo as a freeze. That is not the same as Iran publicly agreeing to end all enrichment.
This is exactly why it is P4. The evidence is ambiguous, and the qualifying pledge is not there.
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/14-point-draft-us-iran-deal-2026-06-17/
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/how-trumps-deal-with-iran-compares-obamas-2026-06-18/
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/us-israel-iran-war/irans-foreign-minister-details-proposed-memorandum-with-us-says-war-would-end-across-all-fronts/3965675
https://carnegieendowment.org/emissary/2026/06/iran-deal-nuclear-weapons-clarity-history
<@1289090798238957581> Your first sentence is the whole problem:
> Iran committed to freeze enrichment for 60+ days.
That is not what the MOU says. It says Iran will maintain the current status quo of its nuclear program. It does not define that as zero enrichment, and it does not say Iran agrees to end all enrichment.
The actual enrichment clause says enrichment will be discussed in the final deal.
Reuters June 18:
> “no specific commitments from Tehran other than to discuss nuclear issues in the 60-day window”
Anadolu quotes Araghchi:
> “no final decisions” on uranium enrichment levels or stockpiles
Carnegie:
> “the document’s failure to define the status quo creates problems”
So the most you have is: some reporting/commentary interprets status quo as a freeze. That is not the same as Iran publicly agreeing to end all enrichment.
This is exactly why it is P4. The evidence is ambiguous, and the qualifying pledge is not there.
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/14-point-draft-us-iran-deal-2026-06-17/
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/how-trumps-deal-with-iran-compares-obamas-2026-06-18/
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/us-israel-iran-war/irans-foreign-minister-details-proposed-memorandum-with-us-says-war-would-end-across-all-fronts/3965675
https://carnegieendowment.org/emissary/2026/06/iran-deal-nuclear-weapons-clarity-history
There is not a single correct argumentation for P2
There is not a single correct argumentation for P2
Of course you, the israeli, says it's p2 lmao
Of course you, the israeli, says it's p2 lmao
Hey is there a reason you're completely ignoring my message which broke down your whole argument?
Hey is there a reason you're completely ignoring my message which broke down your whole argument?
.
.
<@1178665239173140504> you're genuinely pathetic. Spamming your useless arguments and ignoring anyone that breaks your argument down into the trash it is
<@1178665239173140504> you're genuinely pathetic. Spamming your useless arguments and ignoring anyone that breaks your argument down into the trash it is
<@1289090798238957581> don't ignore me now.
<@1289090798238957581> don't ignore me now.
No they don't lol now you're making up lies again
No they don't lol now you're making up lies again
Month isnt over so cant be p1
Month isnt over so cant be p1
Terrible proposal.
This starts with the exact assumption that is being disputed:
> Iran has agreed to maintaining the status quo on enrichment. Which is 0 enrichment currently.
No. The MOU does not say “status quo on enrichment.” It says status quo of the nuclear program, undefined. And the same MOU separately says the parties will “discuss the issue of enrichment” in the final deal.
So you still have to prove that undefined “status quo” = a public Iranian pledge to end all enrichment. That is not in the text.
The Reuters quote is also not an official Iranian pledge. It is an anonymous official/source description saying “refraining from further uranium enrichment.” Reuters June 18 later says the interim deal has “no specific commitments from Tehran other than to discuss nuclear issues in the 60-day window.”
AP saying Iran is currently not enriching also does not solve it. Current physical status is not the same as Iran publicly agreeing to end all enrichment. Even the IAEA cannot verify whether Iran has suspended all enrichment-related activities.
So the evidence shows at most an ambiguous interim freeze/status quo interpretation. It does not show a qualifying public pledge by Iran to end all enrichment.
That is P4, not P2.
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/14-point-draft-us-iran-deal-2026-06-17/
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/how-trumps-deal-with-iran-compares-obamas-2026-06-18/
https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/gov2026-8.pdf
<@941405798096076880>
Terrible proposal.
This starts with the exact assumption that is being disputed:
> Iran has agreed to maintaining the status quo on enrichment. Which is 0 enrichment currently.
No. The MOU does not say “status quo on enrichment.” It says status quo of the nuclear program, undefined. And the same MOU separately says the parties will “discuss the issue of enrichment” in the final deal.
So you still have to prove that undefined “status quo” = a public Iranian pledge to end all enrichment. That is not in the text.
The Reuters quote is also not an official Iranian pledge. It is an anonymous official/source description saying “refraining from further uranium enrichment.” Reuters June 18 later says the interim deal has “no specific commitments from Tehran other than to discuss nuclear issues in the 60-day window.”
AP saying Iran is currently not enriching also does not solve it. Current physical status is not the same as Iran publicly agreeing to end all enrichment. Even the IAEA cannot verify whether Iran has suspended all enrichment-related activities.
So the evidence shows at most an ambiguous interim freeze/status quo interpretation. It does not show a qualifying public pledge by Iran to end all enrichment.
That is P4, not P2.
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/14-point-draft-us-iran-deal-2026-06-17/
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/how-trumps-deal-with-iran-compares-obamas-2026-06-18/
https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/gov2026-8.pdf
<@941405798096076880>
Your first sentence is the whole problem:
> Iran committed to freeze enrichment for 60+ days.
That is not what the MOU says. It says Iran will maintain the current status quo of its nuclear program. It does not define that as zero enrichment, and it does not say Iran agrees to end all enrichment.
The actual enrichment clause says enrichment will be discussed in the final deal.
Reuters June 18:
> “no specific commitments from Tehran other than to discuss nuclear issues in the 60-day window”
Anadolu quotes Araghchi:
> “no final decisions” on uranium enrichment levels or stockpiles
Carnegie:
> “the document’s failure to define the status quo creates problems”
So the most you have is: some reporting/commentary interprets status quo as a freeze. That is not the same as Iran publicly agreeing to end all enrichment.
This is exactly why it is P4. The evidence is ambiguous, and the qualifying pledge is not there.
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/14-point-draft-us-iran-deal-2026-06-17/
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/how-trumps-deal-with-iran-compares-obamas-2026-06-18/
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/us-israel-iran-war/irans-foreign-minister-details-proposed-memorandum-with-us-says-war-would-end-across-all-fronts/3965675
https://carnegieendowment.org/emissary/2026/06/iran-deal-nuclear-weapons-clarity-history
<@941405798096076880>
Your first sentence is the whole problem:
> Iran committed to freeze enrichment for 60+ days.
That is not what the MOU says. It says Iran will maintain the current status quo of its nuclear program. It does not define that as zero enrichment, and it does not say Iran agrees to end all enrichment.
The actual enrichment clause says enrichment will be discussed in the final deal.
Reuters June 18:
> “no specific commitments from Tehran other than to discuss nuclear issues in the 60-day window”
Anadolu quotes Araghchi:
> “no final decisions” on uranium enrichment levels or stockpiles
Carnegie:
> “the document’s failure to define the status quo creates problems”
So the most you have is: some reporting/commentary interprets status quo as a freeze. That is not the same as Iran publicly agreeing to end all enrichment.
This is exactly why it is P4. The evidence is ambiguous, and the qualifying pledge is not there.
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/14-point-draft-us-iran-deal-2026-06-17/
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/how-trumps-deal-with-iran-compares-obamas-2026-06-18/
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/us-israel-iran-war/irans-foreign-minister-details-proposed-memorandum-with-us-says-war-would-end-across-all-fronts/3965675
https://carnegieendowment.org/emissary/2026/06/iran-deal-nuclear-weapons-clarity-history
<@941405798096076880>
You’re assuming the key part:
> status quo = no enrichment
But the MOU does not define status quo that way. The same MOU separately says:
> the parties agree to “discuss the issue of enrichment” in the final Deal
If enrichment was already clearly ended by the status quo clause, there would be no reason to leave “the issue of enrichment” for the final deal.
Reuters June 18 also says:
> “no specific commitments from Tehran other than to discuss nuclear issues in the 60-day window”
So your case is not a public Iranian pledge to end all enrichment. It is an interpretation of an undefined clause.
P2 needs a qualifying pledge. Undefined status quo + enrichment left for later talks = P4.
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/14-point-draft-us-iran-deal-2026-06-17/
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/how-trumps-deal-with-iran-compares-obamas-2026-06-18/
<@941405798096076880>
You’re assuming the key part:
> status quo = no enrichment
But the MOU does not define status quo that way. The same MOU separately says:
> the parties agree to “discuss the issue of enrichment” in the final Deal
If enrichment was already clearly ended by the status quo clause, there would be no reason to leave “the issue of enrichment” for the final deal.
Reuters June 18 also says:
> “no specific commitments from Tehran other than to discuss nuclear issues in the 60-day window”
So your case is not a public Iranian pledge to end all enrichment. It is an interpretation of an undefined clause.
P2 needs a qualifying pledge. Undefined status quo + enrichment left for later talks = P4.
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/14-point-draft-us-iran-deal-2026-06-17/
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/how-trumps-deal-with-iran-compares-obamas-2026-06-18/
<@941405798096076880>
They havent.
They havent.
No. The official stance from Iran is NOT that the program is halted.
No. The official stance from Iran is NOT that the program is halted.
He knows very well, but he keeps on repeating lies in the hope of deceiving some poor dickriders
He knows very well, but he keeps on repeating lies in the hope of deceiving some poor dickriders
Imagine writing such a long piece of copium and starting it with a literal lie "In the agreement, Iran committed to freeze enrichment for 60+ days."
Imagine writing such a long piece of copium and starting it with a literal lie "In the agreement, Iran committed to freeze enrichment for 60+ days."
IEAE: We dont know the state of their nuclear sites and whether they are on aren't enriching
Yestards: Status quo means no enrichment!!! And thus by extension it means iran agreed to no extension!!!!!
IEAE: We dont know the state of their nuclear sites and whether they are on aren't enriching
Yestards: Status quo means no enrichment!!! And thus by extension it means iran agreed to no extension!!!!!
The issue is simple:
Yes argument is: "status quo = no enrichment"
But there is not sufficient evidence to back this. There are some anonymous reports and some completely out of context quotes, but none of this is "consensus of credible reporting", not even CLOSE.
On the other hand we have the literal IAEA + many other reports stating the current status of the Iranian Uranium program is UNCLEAR and that they can not know whether they are still enrich or not.
So, it is a very very VERY clear P4
The issue is simple:
Yes argument is: "status quo = no enrichment"
But there is not sufficient evidence to back this. There are some anonymous reports and some completely out of context quotes, but none of this is "consensus of credible reporting", not even CLOSE.
On the other hand we have the literal IAEA + many other reports stating the current status of the Iranian Uranium program is UNCLEAR and that they can not know whether they are still enrich or not.
So, it is a very very VERY clear P4
Arguments: 0
Ad hominems: 1
Goodjob car
Arguments: 0
Ad hominems: 1
Goodjob car
most of these are genuinely arguments for N lmao
most of these are genuinely arguments for N lmao
There is no way you are still repeating these retarded outdated anonymous opinion pieces
There is no way you are still repeating these retarded outdated anonymous opinion pieces
didnt know you're this poor
didnt know you're this poor
No, they proposed december for Yes to try and backdoor it but it got disputed
No, they proposed december for Yes to try and backdoor it but it got disputed
Cope
Cope
The issue is simple:
Yes argument is: "status quo = no enrichment"
But there is not sufficient evidence to back this. There are some anonymous reports and some completely out of context quotes, but none of this is "consensus of credible reporting", not even CLOSE.
On the other hand we have the literal IAEA + many other reports stating the current status of the Iranian Uranium program is UNCLEAR and that they can not know whether they are still enrich or not.
So, it is a very very VERY clear P4
The issue is simple:
Yes argument is: "status quo = no enrichment"
But there is not sufficient evidence to back this. There are some anonymous reports and some completely out of context quotes, but none of this is "consensus of credible reporting", not even CLOSE.
On the other hand we have the literal IAEA + many other reports stating the current status of the Iranian Uranium program is UNCLEAR and that they can not know whether they are still enrich or not.
So, it is a very very VERY clear P4
1. There are 11 days until the resolution date, time decay is now a huge issue for YES.
2. The MoU sets a non-binding timeline of 60 days for negotiations, which can be extended. Experts are saying this could take several months.
3. Negotiations that were supposed to begin tomorrow have been cancelled by Iran, meaning they likely won't resume for another week, pushing the timeline for any kind of possible agreement back even further.
4. Trump himself has said he would allow low level enrichment
5. Iran has stated that civilian enrichment is a red line
6. There is still very little diplomatic momentum.
1. There are 11 days until the resolution date, time decay is now a huge issue for YES.
2. The MoU sets a non-binding timeline of 60 days for negotiations, which can be extended. Experts are saying this could take several months.
3. Negotiations that were supposed to begin tomorrow have been cancelled by Iran, meaning they likely won't resume for another week, pushing the timeline for any kind of possible agreement back even further.
4. Trump himself has said he would allow low level enrichment
5. Iran has stated that civilian enrichment is a red line
6. There is still very little diplomatic momentum.
Even the Y holders know it's a scam from the fact that they propose december without proposing june
Even the Y holders know it's a scam from the fact that they propose december without proposing june
N is literally the truth lmao we have been showing you why your Y arguments are shit for the past 40 hours
N is literally the truth lmao we have been showing you why your Y arguments are shit for the past 40 hours
finally the yestards scammers are getting punished by the righteous polymarket team
finally the yestards scammers are getting punished by the righteous polymarket team
Very true.
Very true.
"this is well known"
Hhahahaha me when I lie
"this is well known"
Hhahahaha me when I lie
Yeah it doesn't work that way, it is not either 0 or 1. It is not either black or white. There are infinite possibilties, of which only ONE resolves this market to P2. That ONE possibility = PUBLICLY AGREEING TO END ENRICHMENT.
This has not happened, and thus it is NOT P2.
Yeah it doesn't work that way, it is not either 0 or 1. It is not either black or white. There are infinite possibilties, of which only ONE resolves this market to P2. That ONE possibility = PUBLICLY AGREEING TO END ENRICHMENT.
This has not happened, and thus it is NOT P2.
GG WELL PLAYED
P4 CONFIRMED.
GG WELL PLAYED
P4 CONFIRMED.
<@1289090798238957581> reply to this (you can't)
<@1289090798238957581> reply to this (you can't)
Exactly
Exactly
There is no senior iranian official statement
There is no senior iranian official statement
For this market it does not matter what it IS, it only matters that it is NOT ending enrichment,
For this market it does not matter what it IS, it only matters that it is NOT ending enrichment,
They never agreed to that. Keep spouting that lie
They never agreed to that. Keep spouting that lie
8 or so outdated anonymous opinion pieces
8 or so outdated anonymous opinion pieces
They agreed to keep the status quo. I already replied to you 15 times
They agreed to keep the status quo. I already replied to you 15 times
Polymarket