PolymarketYour alt for hive?
Your alt for hive?
pi参与话题 14消息总数 986
该用户的聊天记录定位。
聊天记录
共 986 条，显示第 51-100 条well, doesnt matter already, but most people already made their mind until then
well, doesnt matter already, but most people already made their mind until then
pre clarif droped it 20c and further
pre clarif droped it 20c and further
it was like 56-58 for N
it was like 56-58 for N
no, you must have miss something or was not following precisely, domer moved price like 2-3c
no, you must have miss something or was not following precisely, domer moved price like 2-3c
havent affected the price, it was stable till pre-clarif
havent affected the price, it was stable till pre-clarif
unless he pressed for the clarif somehow
unless he pressed for the clarif somehow
i dont think that domer had any effect on the outcome whatsoever
i dont think that domer had any effect on the outcome whatsoever
and was there till clarif
and was there till clarif
over 70 before dispute, then fell to around 42-45 after disputing it for 5 hours
over 70 before dispute, then fell to around 42-45 after disputing it for 5 hours
Also other Middle East airspace markets would be good, especially Iraq, Kuwait, Jordan, Syria, Qatar
Also other Middle East airspace markets would be good, especially Iraq, Kuwait, Jordan, Syria, Qatar
https://polymarket.com/event/iran-closes-its-airspace-byptptpt-20260609184135829 we need new iran airspace market
https://polymarket.com/event/iran-closes-its-airspace-byptptpt-20260609184135829 we need new iran airspace market
whats hive
whats hive
Both can be N by June 30, markets have different rules and status quo is open to interpretation on purpose, both markets can resolve and most probably resolve to no since it is not in the interest of the sides to interpret this term in a negative way to their own merit
Both can be N by June 30, markets have different rules and status quo is open to interpretation on purpose, both markets can resolve and most probably resolve to no since it is not in the interest of the sides to interpret this term in a negative way to their own merit
I believe you have an understanding of how vague and opinionated your arguments are and that they have no bearing on the resolution of this market but you still continue for some reason
I believe you have an understanding of how vague and opinionated your arguments are and that they have no bearing on the resolution of this market but you still continue for some reason
Thank you for being worried about my sleep quality
Thank you for being worried about my sleep quality
Yeah checked from the phone quickly
Yeah checked from the phone quickly
Think about it Y cult
Think about it Y cult
Car reposting 20 hours old initial "arguments" after these arguments being demolished already numerous times during this conversation means that scam regroup didn't go well, and all what's left is capitulation under possible upcoming clarification of PM
Car reposting 20 hours old initial "arguments" after these arguments being demolished already numerous times during this conversation means that scam regroup didn't go well, and all what's left is capitulation under possible upcoming clarification of PM
I'm going to sleep now, i wish you the best N team
I'm going to sleep now, i wish you the best N team
P2 can cherrypicking reporting further but on every opinion piece for P2 there will be opinion piece for P1, there is no consensus even on interpretation of the text of the mou
P2 can cherrypicking reporting further but on every opinion piece for P2 there will be opinion piece for P1, there is no consensus even on interpretation of the text of the mou
I have 20+ sources which states otherwise, what does it mean?
I have 20+ sources which states otherwise, what does it mean?
Acording to this i'm saying that the status is unknown and opinion pieces have no bearing on the market resolution
Acording to this i'm saying that the status is unknown and opinion pieces have no bearing on the market resolution
Nabavian: Nabavian original statement it was political criticism of the text of the MOU. Nabavian was speaking as a parliamentary critic arguing that the draft was too vague and too concessionary, Araghchi and Iranian FM statements directly contradict Nabavian criticism, it cannot be considered as Iranian pledge to end enrichment since it is parliamentarian interpretation of a text to criticize it, not an Iranian stance on enrichment. Zohourian: opinion piece. Reuters and NYT quotes same unnamed official which is still only an opinion and was made when the contents of the MOU were still unknown (and potentially not finalized) and is contradicted by further Reuters reporting and by statements from other named Iranian officials, including Aragchi and the FM.
Nabavian: Nabavian original statement it was political criticism of the text of the MOU. Nabavian was speaking as a parliamentary critic arguing that the draft was too vague and too concessionary, Araghchi and Iranian FM statements directly contradict Nabavian criticism, it cannot be considered as Iranian pledge to end enrichment since it is parliamentarian interpretation of a text to criticize it, not an Iranian stance on enrichment. Zohourian: opinion piece. Reuters and NYT quotes same unnamed official which is still only an opinion and was made when the contents of the MOU were still unknown (and potentially not finalized) and is contradicted by further Reuters reporting and by statements from other named Iranian officials, including Aragchi and the FM.
Sure, my pleasure: All of P2 arguments are either misquotes, such as Vance, quotes taken out of context such as Nabavian, or personal opinions from people such as Brett McGurk or Iranian professor. In the end it all comes down to a single unnamed Reuters iranian official quote, which is still only an opinion and was made when the contents of the MOU were still unknown (and potentially not finalized) and is contradicted by further Reuters reporting and by statements from other named Iranian officials, including Aragchi and the FM. It is breadcrumbs frankenstein which is reconstructed from media opinion of what might happen or some media think is happened, while others in contradiction. Ultimately none of this matters for the resolution since there has been no official announcement and credible reporting of definitive commitment to end enrichment.
Sure, my pleasure: All of P2 arguments are either misquotes, such as Vance, quotes taken out of context such as Nabavian, or personal opinions from people such as Brett McGurk or Iranian professor. In the end it all comes down to a single unnamed Reuters iranian official quote, which is still only an opinion and was made when the contents of the MOU were still unknown (and potentially not finalized) and is contradicted by further Reuters reporting and by statements from other named Iranian officials, including Aragchi and the FM. It is breadcrumbs frankenstein which is reconstructed from media opinion of what might happen or some media think is happened, while others in contradiction. Ultimately none of this matters for the resolution since there has been no official announcement and credible reporting of definitive commitment to end enrichment.
Which based on opinion pieces which is answered in my message, want me to copy paste it again?
Which based on opinion pieces which is answered in my message, want me to copy paste it again?
No there is no 4 iranians officials, he's just making it up. Read my previous message it covers ALL the articles and opinion pieces they provided
No there is no 4 iranians officials, he's just making it up. Read my previous message it covers ALL the articles and opinion pieces they provided
I agree it's very lame to circlejerking same already destroyed arguments for P2 in futile attempts to recover price and continue the scam
I agree it's very lame to circlejerking same already destroyed arguments for P2 in futile attempts to recover price and continue the scam
Happy to discuss new argument if you have any.
Happy to discuss new argument if you have any.
It's maybe tiring to read this message again and again, as well as copy pasting it for me, but really there is nothing else P2 can propose as arguments apart of that, so i can just continue copy pasting it. It has all the answers on all P2 arguments: All of P2 arguments are either misquotes, such as Vance, quotes taken out of context such as Nabavian, or personal opinions from people such as Brett McGurk or Iranian professor. In the end it all comes down to a single unnamed Reuters iranian official quote, which is still only an opinion and was made when the contents of the MOU were still unknown (and potentially not finalized) and is contradicted by further Reuters reporting and by statements from other named Iranian officials, including Aragchi and the FM. It is breadcrumbs frankenstein which is reconstructed from media opinion of what might happen or some media think is happened, while others in contradiction. Ultimately none of this matters for the resolution since there has been no official announcement and credible reporting of definitive commitment to end enrichment.
It's maybe tiring to read this message again and again, as well as copy pasting it for me, but really there is nothing else P2 can propose as arguments apart of that, so i can just continue copy pasting it. It has all the answers on all P2 arguments: All of P2 arguments are either misquotes, such as Vance, quotes taken out of context such as Nabavian, or personal opinions from people such as Brett McGurk or Iranian professor. In the end it all comes down to a single unnamed Reuters iranian official quote, which is still only an opinion and was made when the contents of the MOU were still unknown (and potentially not finalized) and is contradicted by further Reuters reporting and by statements from other named Iranian officials, including Aragchi and the FM. It is breadcrumbs frankenstein which is reconstructed from media opinion of what might happen or some media think is happened, while others in contradiction. Ultimately none of this matters for the resolution since there has been no official announcement and credible reporting of definitive commitment to end enrichment.
Again, even Reuters quote is still only an opinion and was made when the contents of the MOU were still unknown (and potentially not finalized) and is contradicted by further Reuters reporting and by statements from other named Iranian officials, including Aragchi and the FM.
Again, even Reuters quote is still only an opinion and was made when the contents of the MOU were still unknown (and potentially not finalized) and is contradicted by further Reuters reporting and by statements from other named Iranian officials, including Aragchi and the FM.
Status quo is open to interpretation on purpose, both sides can claim victory and it is not in the interest of the sides to interpret this term in a negative way to their own merit
Status quo is open to interpretation on purpose, both sides can claim victory and it is not in the interest of the sides to interpret this term in a negative way to their own merit
Even Reuters quote is still only an opinion and was made when the contents of the MOU were still unknown (and potentially not finalized) and is contradicted by further Reuters reporting and by statements from other named Iranian officials, including Aragchi and the FM.
Even Reuters quote is still only an opinion and was made when the contents of the MOU were still unknown (and potentially not finalized) and is contradicted by further Reuters reporting and by statements from other named Iranian officials, including Aragchi and the FM.
All of these were addressed during today conversation, if you have any evidence which is not an opinion piece and reflects Iranian government stance on the matter of enrichment i'm happy to argue on that
All of these were addressed during today conversation, if you have any evidence which is not an opinion piece and reflects Iranian government stance on the matter of enrichment i'm happy to argue on that
Doesn't even matter cause all provided "evidence" is opinion pieces on the text of the mou, not an official stance of the Iranian government on the commitment to end enrichment
Doesn't even matter cause all provided "evidence" is opinion pieces on the text of the mou, not an official stance of the Iranian government on the commitment to end enrichment
All P2 arguments in shambles
All P2 arguments in shambles
These evidence?
These evidence?
All of P2 arguments are either misquotes, such as Vance, quotes taken out of context such as Nabavian, or personal opinions from people such as Brett McGurk or Iranian professor. AP is 2025 article. In the end it all comes down to a single unnamed Reuters iranian official quote, which is still only an opinion and was made when the contents of the MOU were still unknown (and potentially not finalized) and is contradicted by further Reuters reporting and by statements from other named Iranian officials, including Aragchi and the FM. It is breadcrumbs frankenstein which is reconstructed from media opinion of what might happen or some media think is happened, while others in contradiction. Ultimately none of this matters for the resolution since there has been no official announcement and credible reporting of definitive commitment to end enrichment.
All of P2 arguments are either misquotes, such as Vance, quotes taken out of context such as Nabavian, or personal opinions from people such as Brett McGurk or Iranian professor. AP is 2025 article. In the end it all comes down to a single unnamed Reuters iranian official quote, which is still only an opinion and was made when the contents of the MOU were still unknown (and potentially not finalized) and is contradicted by further Reuters reporting and by statements from other named Iranian officials, including Aragchi and the FM. It is breadcrumbs frankenstein which is reconstructed from media opinion of what might happen or some media think is happened, while others in contradiction. Ultimately none of this matters for the resolution since there has been no official announcement and credible reporting of definitive commitment to end enrichment.
If it is opinion pieces you can read my previous message
If it is opinion pieces you can read my previous message
As Effendi said today "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", please provide at least any evidence
As Effendi said today "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", please provide at least any evidence
I can just copy paste it cause ultimately there is no more new arguments for P2 apart of opinion pieces
I can just copy paste it cause ultimately there is no more new arguments for P2 apart of opinion pieces
All of P2 arguments are either misquotes, such as Vance, quotes taken out of context such as Nabavian, or personal opinions from people such as Brett McGurk or Iranian professor. AP is 2025 article. In the end it all comes down to a single unnamed Reuters iranian official quote, which is still only an opinion and was made when the contents of the MOU were still unknown (and potentially not finalized) and is contradicted by further Reuters reporting and by statements from other named Iranian officials, including Aragchi and the FM. It is breadcrumbs frankenstein which is reconstructed from media opinion of what might happen or some media think is happened, while others in contradiction. Ultimately none of this matters for the resolution since there has been no official announcement and credible reporting of definitive commitment to end enrichment.
All of P2 arguments are either misquotes, such as Vance, quotes taken out of context such as Nabavian, or personal opinions from people such as Brett McGurk or Iranian professor. AP is 2025 article. In the end it all comes down to a single unnamed Reuters iranian official quote, which is still only an opinion and was made when the contents of the MOU were still unknown (and potentially not finalized) and is contradicted by further Reuters reporting and by statements from other named Iranian officials, including Aragchi and the FM. It is breadcrumbs frankenstein which is reconstructed from media opinion of what might happen or some media think is happened, while others in contradiction. Ultimately none of this matters for the resolution since there has been no official announcement and credible reporting of definitive commitment to end enrichment.
What you are saying is are contradicted opinion pieces on the topic which have no bearing on the resolution of this market
What you are saying is are contradicted opinion pieces on the topic which have no bearing on the resolution of this market
<@1178665239173140504> All of P2 arguments are either misquotes, such as Vance, quotes taken out of context such as Nabavian, or personal opinions from people such as Brett McGurk or Iranian professor. AP is 2025 article. In the end it all comes down to a single unnamed Reuters iranian official quote, which is still only an opinion and was made when the contents of the MOU were still unknown (and potentially not finalized) and is contradicted by further Reuters reporting and by statements from other named Iranian officials, including Aragchi and the FM. It is breadcrumbs frankenstein which is reconstructed from media opinion of what might happen or some media think is happened, while others in contradiction. Ultimately none of this matters for the resolution since there has been no official announcement and credible reporting of definitive commitment to end enrichment.
<@1178665239173140504> All of P2 arguments are either misquotes, such as Vance, quotes taken out of context such as Nabavian, or personal opinions from people such as Brett McGurk or Iranian professor. AP is 2025 article. In the end it all comes down to a single unnamed Reuters iranian official quote, which is still only an opinion and was made when the contents of the MOU were still unknown (and potentially not finalized) and is contradicted by further Reuters reporting and by statements from other named Iranian officials, including Aragchi and the FM. It is breadcrumbs frankenstein which is reconstructed from media opinion of what might happen or some media think is happened, while others in contradiction. Ultimately none of this matters for the resolution since there has been no official announcement and credible reporting of definitive commitment to end enrichment.
No he's not, markets have different rules and status quo is open to interpretation on purpose, both market can resolve and most probably resolve to no since it is not in the interest of the sides to interpret this term in a negative way to their own merit
No he's not, markets have different rules and status quo is open to interpretation on purpose, both market can resolve and most probably resolve to no since it is not in the interest of the sides to interpret this term in a negative way to their own merit
Nothing stated in the P2 arguments are representing a consensus as stated numerous time during todays 20h discussion, at the best it is contradicted opinions on the topic, not a consensus of reporting on the iranian commitment to pledge to no enrichment as rules requires
Nothing stated in the P2 arguments are representing a consensus as stated numerous time during todays 20h discussion, at the best it is contradicted opinions on the topic, not a consensus of reporting on the iranian commitment to pledge to no enrichment as rules requires
Opinions on the term have no bearing on the market resolution
Opinions on the term have no bearing on the market resolution
Not interested in theorizing on this topic
Not interested in theorizing on this topic
Implying there are definitive details on the enrichment in the mou, and there isnt
Implying there are definitive details on the enrichment in the mou, and there isnt
It's left open to interpretation on purpose so both sides can claim political victory
It's left open to interpretation on purpose so both sides can claim political victory