Polymarket"invest"
"invest"
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 101-150 条Do you have a folder of gifs for all occasions?
Do you have a folder of gifs for all occasions?
no more enrichment scams
no more enrichment scams
gg
gg
I hope it was not too dramatic explanation.
I hope it was not too dramatic explanation.
TLDR for you: Denizz with friends and baiting others by mogging the book tried to scam enrichment to Y with proposing lower volume brackets, which were not seen on the first page, while it was around 60-65c, and failed. 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. Now they are regrouping for the next move or capitulation under PM clarification.
TLDR for you: Denizz with friends and baiting others by mogging the book tried to scam enrichment to Y with proposing lower volume brackets, which were not seen on the first page, while it was around 60-65c, and failed. 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. Now they are regrouping for the next move or capitulation under PM clarification.
We all know how it ends usually
We all know how it ends usually
He was discussing this in DM's with Y holders
He was discussing this in DM's with Y holders
And most of the arguers just using Vance name even without providing quote to prove their point.
And most of the arguers just using Vance name even without providing quote to prove their point.
Misquoting means "JD Vance said Iran pledged to not enrich" cause it's not what he said.
Misquoting means "JD Vance said Iran pledged to not enrich" cause it's not what he said.
Wrong reply, meant to <@95759375464923136>
Wrong reply, meant to <@95759375464923136>
He laid out well why this is misquote.
He laid out well why this is misquote.
Did you blocked Effendi?
Did you blocked Effendi?
TLDR on 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 is contradicted 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.
TLDR on 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 is contradicted 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 is misquote
It is misquote
Please provide specific evidence for your claims. If your argument is that Iran hasnt been enriching since last year and that this alone is enough to resolve the market then the market should have resolved months ago. But it did not because that alone is ultimately not enough for resolution and fails even before arguing
Please provide specific evidence for your claims. If your argument is that Iran hasnt been enriching since last year and that this alone is enough to resolve the market then the market should have resolved months ago. But it did not because that alone is ultimately not enough for resolution and fails even before arguing
No it does not. Exaggerated parliamentary criticism of an MOU draft aimed at domestic population picturing the most negative scenario cannot be used to prove Iran official position on enrichment. It is not the official stance of the country especially when it is directly contradicted by public statements from Araghchi and the Foreign Ministry.
No it does not. Exaggerated parliamentary criticism of an MOU draft aimed at domestic population picturing the most negative scenario cannot be used to prove Iran official position on enrichment. It is not the official stance of the country especially when it is directly contradicted by public statements from Araghchi and the Foreign Ministry.
He was criticizing and interpreting a draft MOU as a parliamentarian. It does not prove a definitive Iranian commitment to permanently end enrichment.
He was criticizing and interpreting a draft MOU as a parliamentarian. It does not prove a definitive Iranian commitment to permanently end enrichment.
Nabavian, google translate translates it as Naboyan from farsi for some reason
Nabavian, google translate translates it as Naboyan from farsi for some reason
Here is headline of the article for example. Doesnt look like official Iranian pledge isnt it
Here is headline of the article for example. Doesnt look like official Iranian pledge isnt it
I will repaste from my UMA argument. Post begins with “پیام وارده” - literally “incoming/submitted message” - and says it is based on Nabavian’s remarks about the proposed 14 point Islamabad text, not that it is an official announcement or a formal Iranian pledge. What for 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.
I will repaste from my UMA argument. Post begins with “پیام وارده” - literally “incoming/submitted message” - and says it is based on Nabavian’s remarks about the proposed 14 point Islamabad text, not that it is an official announcement or a formal Iranian pledge. What for 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.
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 is contradicted by statements from other named Iranian officials, including Aragchi and the FM. 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. In the end it all comes down to a single unnamed Reuters iranian official quote, which is still only an opinion and is contradicted by statements from other named Iranian officials, including Aragchi and the FM. 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 you make it market will resolve to Y
If you make it market will resolve to Y
Will qualify
Will qualify
With you and arbguy, peace agreement
With you and arbguy, peace agreement
Iranian pledge.
Iranian pledge.
it will be double disputed eom if not clarified earlier
it will be double disputed eom if not clarified earlier
He's talking about P2 arguments btw
He's talking about P2 arguments btw
Please read the mou and the rules atleast once
Please read the mou and the rules atleast once
Jesus, not like downblending matters for the enrichment question, but "mutually agreed upon in accordance with the schedule mentioned in paragraph seven" -> Paragraph 7 "in an agreed upon schedule as part of the final deal"
Jesus, not like downblending matters for the enrichment question, but "mutually agreed upon in accordance with the schedule mentioned in paragraph seven" -> Paragraph 7 "in an agreed upon schedule as part of the final deal"
So they enrich, being bombed, sign "status quo" mou, and it suddenly means that "status quo" is not the current state of things(enrichment continues), but the status which complies to the documents that iran never complied previously?
So they enrich, being bombed, sign "status quo" mou, and it suddenly means that "status quo" is not the current state of things(enrichment continues), but the status which complies to the documents that iran never complied previously?
Jesus, are you for real, making your argument around documents that Iran doesnt comply with, and this is one of the reasons this war started?
Jesus, are you for real, making your argument around documents that Iran doesnt comply with, and this is one of the reasons this war started?
They reaffirming that they ready to discuss this question later, after trump bailed out from war on the best possible terms for Iran
They reaffirming that they ready to discuss this question later, after trump bailed out from war on the best possible terms for Iran
They not allowed but still bombed for enrichnig <:Bidensmile:1040247925420339251>
They not allowed but still bombed for enrichnig <:Bidensmile:1040247925420339251>
There is nothing in the MOU which ends or limits enrichment.
There is nothing in the MOU which ends or limits enrichment.
And we have nothing of the stated
And we have nothing of the stated
7480/7486 hit the spot
7480/7486 hit the spot
Nice personal opinion on the mou, which doesnt matter for the resolution, gladly
Nice personal opinion on the mou, which doesnt matter for the resolution, gladly
You're coming here with like 20 hours old takes it is not even entertaining. At least read UMA thread first.
You're coming here with like 20 hours old takes it is not even entertaining. At least read UMA thread first.
They thought denizz would succesfully scam it quickly
They thought denizz would succesfully scam it quickly
"An official pledge by Iran to end all enrichment of Uranium will qualify for a “Yes” resolution, whether as a unilateral announcement or part of an agreement with the U.S. or Israel." "The primary resolution source for this market will be a consensus of credible reporting." You can find it if you will read the rules at least once.
"An official pledge by Iran to end all enrichment of Uranium will qualify for a “Yes” resolution, whether as a unilateral announcement or part of an agreement with the U.S. or Israel." "The primary resolution source for this market will be a consensus of credible reporting." You can find it if you will read the rules at least once.
It should be definitive Iranian pledge credibly reported
It should be definitive Iranian pledge credibly reported
It’s not a football game
It’s not a football game
Aragchi and Iranian FM counterargued, next move?
Aragchi and Iranian FM counterargued, next move?
It’s what is written and announced important for the resolution
It’s what is written and announced important for the resolution
“I can read between the lines you can’t”
“I can read between the lines you can’t”
"i think so" type of argument
"i think so" type of argument
<@941405798096076880> <@1272383282687905939> <@1212792946341183578>
<@941405798096076880> <@1272383282687905939> <@1212792946341183578>
Okay if everyone doing this i'll do too
Okay if everyone doing this i'll do too
And the reality is no one knows Iranian stance on this. P2 is just cherrypicking what they like to form an argument
And the reality is no one knows Iranian stance on this. P2 is just cherrypicking what they like to form an argument