Polymarkethttps://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/15/world/middleeast/us-iran-deal.html?smid=url-share
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/15/world/middleeast/us-iran-deal.html?smid=url-share
avrahameisenberg参与话题 0消息总数 41
该用户的聊天记录定位。
聊天记录
共 41 条，显示第 1-41 条This is one hour ago
This is one hour ago
But the Trump interview makes it clear that it's not permanent
But the Trump interview makes it clear that it's not permanent
They also say it's based on officials briefed on it
They also say it's based on officials briefed on it
Why don't you think NYT counts after 28 minutes with Trump?
Why don't you think NYT counts after 28 minutes with Trump?
I expect more to come out today
I expect more to come out today
Trump had a dozen hard deadlines that went by
Trump had a dozen hard deadlines that went by
Who knows tbh Every side has been lying a lot
Who knows tbh Every side has been lying a lot
Remember the last time Shariff made claims about what a deal said? In announcing the deal, Sharif said the ceasefire included Lebanon. However, Trump told “PBS NewsHour” on Wednesday that Lebanon was not part of the deal. Iranian state media has cited officials threatening to call off the deal and close the Strait of Hormuz if the fighting in Lebanon continues. https://thehill.com/policy/international/5821915-sharif-restraint-iran-us-ceasefire/ Much credible
Remember the last time Shariff made claims about what a deal said? In announcing the deal, Sharif said the ceasefire included Lebanon. However, Trump told “PBS NewsHour” on Wednesday that Lebanon was not part of the deal. Iranian state media has cited officials threatening to call off the deal and close the Strait of Hormuz if the fighting in Lebanon continues. https://thehill.com/policy/international/5821915-sharif-restraint-iran-us-ceasefire/ Much credible
This seems highly misleading, as I've quoted several of those saying it's not
This seems highly misleading, as I've quoted several of those saying it's not
There is, you just don't like it because it came through CNN and WSJ instead of directly
There is, you just don't like it because it came through CNN and WSJ instead of directly
Like I said there's conflicting information as to whether it's effective yet
Like I said there's conflicting information as to whether it's effective yet
This is an agreement to agree in the future
This is an agreement to agree in the future
If both sides approve the same treaty eg .
If both sides approve the same treaty eg .
A party could formally adopt by passing a law
A party could formally adopt by passing a law
Formal adoption would be when it's signed
Formal adoption would be when it's signed
I mean it seems clear that the ones reporting a permanent deal are relying on Pakistan, which means they don't qualify as establishing what the US has done Even the ones that say the US has agreed are unlikely to have gotten that directly from a US official, it's just repackaging the Pakistan claim
I mean it seems clear that the ones reporting a permanent deal are relying on Pakistan, which means they don't qualify as establishing what the US has done Even the ones that say the US has agreed are unlikely to have gotten that directly from a US official, it's just repackaging the Pakistan claim
In a regular market perhaps but this one goes out of its way to require clear public confirmation from the US
In a regular market perhaps but this one goes out of its way to require clear public confirmation from the US
And many of the outlets report both - they say there's a 60 day ceasefire and also that Pakistan says it's permanent
And many of the outlets report both - they say there's a 60 day ceasefire and also that Pakistan says it's permanent
I don't think some outlets repeating Pakistan framing is a consensus given the many outlets saying otherwise. If it was everyone saying that it would be different
I don't think some outlets repeating Pakistan framing is a consensus given the many outlets saying otherwise. If it was everyone saying that it would be different
Otherwise will only comment on things relevant to polymarket
Otherwise will only comment on things relevant to polymarket
I deny that I've stolen money from anyone
I deny that I've stolen money from anyone
Is my username bothering people that much? I can change it
Is my username bothering people that much? I can change it
I've looked at everything on the US side. I don't think Iran and Pakistan are relevant evidence for the US side given market rules.
I've looked at everything on the US side. I don't think Iran and Pakistan are relevant evidence for the US side given market rules.
I guess my sense is that the US side alone is not clear enough, and the only reason it's being read that way is because of the very clear Pakistan and Iran statements If the rules allowed taking those into account to help interpret the US statements I'd be on the Yes side. But I think you need to interpret US on its own and I don't think it gets there
I guess my sense is that the US side alone is not clear enough, and the only reason it's being read that way is because of the very clear Pakistan and Iran statements If the rules allowed taking those into account to help interpret the US statements I'd be on the Yes side. But I think you need to interpret US on its own and I don't think it gets there
You're not reading the first one as saying the strait is open immediately?
You're not reading the first one as saying the strait is open immediately?
The initial one says the strait is opening immediately, the second one says it's waiting till Friday Then a US official tells CNN the blockade is also only lifted after the deal is signed. I think if that's true, this should be No. Saying you'll do something after signing is making it contingent, so the current agreement wouldn't be definitive. And obviously if the blockade is ongoing then it's not peace. I would expect some kind of clarification from the US today. I gather you think even if the US officially confirmed that blockade isn't lifted until a deal is signed you'd still be for Yes?
The initial one says the strait is opening immediately, the second one says it's waiting till Friday Then a US official tells CNN the blockade is also only lifted after the deal is signed. I think if that's true, this should be No. Saying you'll do something after signing is making it contingent, so the current agreement wouldn't be definitive. And obviously if the blockade is ongoing then it's not peace. I would expect some kind of clarification from the US today. I gather you think even if the US officially confirmed that blockade isn't lifted until a deal is signed you'd still be for Yes?
Who is arguing that?
Who is arguing that?
Also, like, shouldn't we be able to tell soon from osint whether the US Navy ships are leaving
Also, like, shouldn't we be able to tell soon from osint whether the US Navy ships are leaving
I agree that Iran and Pakistan claim it's already in place. The initial trump post also suggested that, but he walked part of it back shortly afterwards, and US officials walked more of it back later. Do you agree that the later trump post walked some of his initial one back?
I agree that Iran and Pakistan claim it's already in place. The initial trump post also suggested that, but he walked part of it back shortly afterwards, and US officials walked more of it back later. Do you agree that the later trump post walked some of his initial one back?
There may have been, there may not. It's irrelevant to the market, which requires clear US confirmation that a definitive agreement has been reached. Without the text and with conflicting information this is just reading tea leaves.
There may have been, there may not. It's irrelevant to the market, which requires clear US confirmation that a definitive agreement has been reached. Without the text and with conflicting information this is just reading tea leaves.
So how do you get from "we are going to make a deal on Friday" to "we have a definitive agreement today"
So how do you get from "we are going to make a deal on Friday" to "we have a definitive agreement today"
Thanks. As I suspected the link is to truth social https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/116750587569914985
Thanks. As I suspected the link is to truth social https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/116750587569914985
Because the market rules do, requiring it to be clear, and because there's multiple conflicting statements
Because the market rules do, requiring it to be clear, and because there's multiple conflicting statements
Have any of the western sources said they have seen a draft? As far as I can tell they're all careful to source it to Iran or Pakistan
Have any of the western sources said they have seen a draft? As far as I can tell they're all careful to source it to Iran or Pakistan
The statements by trump are unclear, and the Whitehouse statement is unsigned and is characterizing a different trump statement that nobody has bothered to link (my guess is the underlying statement is just his truth social one but who knows)
The statements by trump are unclear, and the Whitehouse statement is unsigned and is characterizing a different trump statement that nobody has bothered to link (my guess is the underlying statement is just his truth social one but who knows)
There's at least three different media outlets that have gotten statements from US officials saying that the Iran side is wrong about what the deal says. Do you agree with that characterization and just think it doesn't matter?
There's at least three different media outlets that have gotten statements from US officials saying that the Iran side is wrong about what the deal says. Do you agree with that characterization and just think it doesn't matter?
I agree. There's two ways it can resolve. One is based on consensus which we don't have. The other is based on clear statements from the US. This shitshow is the opposite of clear.
I agree. There's two ways it can resolve. One is based on consensus which we don't have. The other is based on clear statements from the US. This shitshow is the opposite of clear.
Where can I see it including the link?
Where can I see it including the link?
This is just false, many of the top sites are characterizing it as a 60 day ceasefire
This is just false, many of the top sites are characterizing it as a 60 day ceasefire
The Whitehouse screenshot is someone characterizing Trump's statement. Since the Yes side has declined to post the link to Trump's statement, presumably it doesn't support them.
The Whitehouse screenshot is someone characterizing Trump's statement. Since the Yes side has declined to post the link to Trump's statement, presumably it doesn't support them.