该用户的聊天记录定位。
Fk it, if he can get the overall market PnL to display on the multi bracket markets after all these years, go ahead and get him a Hitachi 🥒
Fk it, if he can get the overall market PnL to display on the multi bracket markets after all these years, go ahead and get him a Hitachi 🥒
That's not the resolution source, nor the resolution criteria
That's not the resolution source, nor the resolution criteria
https://polymarket.com/event/us-x-iran-diplomatic-meeting-by-329
https://polymarket.com/event/us-x-iran-diplomatic-meeting-by-329
We need to find a way to harness this skill that they have for making these markets. I don't know if it can even possibly be used for good, but there is something undeniably skillful about it.
We need to find a way to harness this skill that they have for making these markets. I don't know if it can even possibly be used for good, but there is something undeniably skillful about it.
Fair enough. less recently with these markets, at least ostensibly ig
Fair enough. less recently with these markets, at least ostensibly ig
LMAOO if you're in my DMS you just got in there bro! about left my ass flapping naked in the wind at the 11th hour <:Bidensmile:1040247925420339251> lol! I do apologize Sir, I meant no offense. <:p2p:944658703695609977> I didn't really say anything bad btw, I wish I was caked up with a girl and feeling leisurely, enjoy it as much as you can while you can
LMAOO if you're in my DMS you just got in there bro! about left my ass flapping naked in the wind at the 11th hour <:Bidensmile:1040247925420339251> lol! I do apologize Sir, I meant no offense. <:p2p:944658703695609977> I didn't really say anything bad btw, I wish I was caked up with a girl and feeling leisurely, enjoy it as much as you can while you can
Oh OK OK, makes sense, fwiw I don't think many people are arguing that market at this exact time. But if I'm off I'm an idiot and I was just trying to help
Oh OK OK, makes sense, fwiw I don't think many people are arguing that market at this exact time. But if I'm off I'm an idiot and I was just trying to help
Aw man that's the worst
Aw man that's the worst
not a problem. too far? which part exactly?
not a problem. too far? which part exactly?
brother I can't for the life of me figure out what market you're arguing<:wtf:1000341643926458418> . Are you talking about permanent peace deal aka PPD ?
brother I can't for the life of me figure out what market you're arguing<:wtf:1000341643926458418> . Are you talking about permanent peace deal aka PPD ?
Oh so "no 16th" and "yes 17th"? Is that what you're saying? <:Bidensmile:1040247925420339251>
Oh so "no 16th" and "yes 17th"? Is that what you're saying? <:Bidensmile:1040247925420339251>
Ya hate to see it.
Ya hate to see it.
Dude used to be sick
Dude used to be sick
He used to give really like deep 3rd level mind fucking type arguments, just come in and drop the hammer... Now we're lucky if we get a limp "meh, like what even is the case for the other side that I don't have shares of?"
He used to give really like deep 3rd level mind fucking type arguments, just come in and drop the hammer... Now we're lucky if we get a limp "meh, like what even is the case for the other side that I don't have shares of?"
he's washed. happens. gum called it
he's washed. happens. gum called it
He's caked up, He got lazy. he's got a girl . no more hungry
He's caked up, He got lazy. he's got a girl . no more hungry
Dr Splunkers in the House, Ay-O! <:trumpok:1480177373017276598> Real talk
Dr Splunkers in the House, Ay-O! <:trumpok:1480177373017276598> Real talk
NSC, clocking in 🧑🏭
NSC, clocking in 🧑🏭
did the same act with the last market
did the same act with the last market
Look, I can do it too <:Bidensmile:1040247925420339251>
Look, I can do it too <:Bidensmile:1040247925420339251>
Authenticated, you say? and what would that look like?
Authenticated, you say? and what would that look like?
*This* would be an example of something that would not count. The Bloomberg article is nothing like that. but while we have it, look at the top of the middle column: "Details of the US Iran agreement published by US media" They list two sources, AP and Axios, and we have two different Bloomberg articles, one including the entire text word-for-word of the MoU, published on 16th, and an Al Arabiya article. What more consensus do you need?
*This* would be an example of something that would not count. The Bloomberg article is nothing like that. but while we have it, look at the top of the middle column: "Details of the US Iran agreement published by US media" They list two sources, AP and Axios, and we have two different Bloomberg articles, one including the entire text word-for-word of the MoU, published on 16th, and an Al Arabiya article. What more consensus do you need?
Did other reporting say that the Bloomberg article that reported the full text of the Mou on the 16th of June at 4:00 PM, did other news outlets that did not have the scoop confirm that reporting by midnight that same night? Probably not. if you think that means you should win the wager by betting 'no' on whether or not they would release the text or any portion of the text by the 16th, then it sort of makes sense why you keep accusing people of scamming
Did other reporting say that the Bloomberg article that reported the full text of the Mou on the 16th of June at 4:00 PM, did other news outlets that did not have the scoop confirm that reporting by midnight that same night? Probably not. if you think that means you should win the wager by betting 'no' on whether or not they would release the text or any portion of the text by the 16th, then it sort of makes sense why you keep accusing people of scamming
so you're saying if there was a leak, in order for it to qualify, it would need to be confirmed by the US and the Iranian side **and** reported by a consensus of credible reporting? jfc, no wonder you guys were on no
so you're saying if there was a leak, in order for it to qualify, it would need to be confirmed by the US and the Iranian side **and** reported by a consensus of credible reporting? jfc, no wonder you guys were on no
how tf not?
how tf not?
🤮 <:pepeclown:1480177442395127841> <:scam:1479898552590270565>
🤮 <:pepeclown:1480177442395127841> <:scam:1479898552590270565>
Yeah why would they want to submit themselves in the lore of digitally tokenized history with the likes of loser companies like Hyperliquid, Tether or Circle. Industry's washed anyway <:Bidensmile:1040247925420339251> <:Bidensmile:1040247925420339251> <:Bidensmile:1040247925420339251>
Yeah why would they want to submit themselves in the lore of digitally tokenized history with the likes of loser companies like Hyperliquid, Tether or Circle. Industry's washed anyway <:Bidensmile:1040247925420339251> <:Bidensmile:1040247925420339251> <:Bidensmile:1040247925420339251>
You get your refund?
You get your refund?
<:Bidensmile:1040247925420339251> > Democratic primary > The Democratic primary scheduled for June 23, 2026, was canceled. Incumbent Hakeem Jeffries (D) advanced from the Democratic primary for U.S. House New York District 8 without appearing on the ballot.
<:Bidensmile:1040247925420339251> > Democratic primary > The Democratic primary scheduled for June 23, 2026, was canceled. Incumbent Hakeem Jeffries (D) advanced from the Democratic primary for U.S. House New York District 8 without appearing on the ballot.
What is favorable interpretation when the rules in their entirety are this: > This market will resolve according to the winner of the Democratic Primary for United States Representative from New York’s 8th Congressional District. > > If no 2026 New York 8th District Democratic House Primary takes place, this market will resolve to “Other.” > > The resolution source for this market will be the first official announcement of the results from the New York Democratic Party; however, an overwhelming consensus of credible reporting may suffice. New York 8th District Democratic House Primary does not take place* yet they clarify this: > In the event that no primary election is held because the relevant party or state authorities determine that the party nominee for the relevant position will be chosen by a different method, this market will resolve in favor of the winner of such method. ? obviously don't believe they were outright intentionally scamming, but I can't for the life of me imagine what the benevolent explanation is. anybody have a guess?
What is favorable interpretation when the rules in their entirety are this: > This market will resolve according to the winner of the Democratic Primary for United States Representative from New York’s 8th Congressional District. > > If no 2026 New York 8th District Democratic House Primary takes place, this market will resolve to “Other.” > > The resolution source for this market will be the first official announcement of the results from the New York Democratic Party; however, an overwhelming consensus of credible reporting may suffice. New York 8th District Democratic House Primary does not take place* yet they clarify this: > In the event that no primary election is held because the relevant party or state authorities determine that the party nominee for the relevant position will be chosen by a different method, this market will resolve in favor of the winner of such method. ? obviously don't believe they were outright intentionally scamming, but I can't for the life of me imagine what the benevolent explanation is. anybody have a guess?
I don't know if anybody else has reported this but I have my profile set to **not auto redeem** but it continuously auto redeems my positions. > humbly, imo the team is seriously sleeping on the User experience of redeeming positions. > > There is **no addition to the portfolio when you redeem winning positions**. I understand the way the PNL logic is written is why this happens, but it would be a lot better if the experience of winning a prediction was more pronounced re: the effect it had on the portfolio. As is, no matter what your size is, **when you make a prediction that is correct, you never get to see your portfolio increase by that full profit** (unless you only make one prediction at a time and you simply buy and hold till expiry) > > This dampens if not entirely mutes the experience of winning for new traders. the hope of ***winning*** is why they play the game, what makes them come back. But it is tough to get hooked on a feeling the platform will not allow you to feel, even when you are correct. This is why, even if it does not affect the portfolio, **it is still at least something to be able to manually redeem winning positions into cash**, please don't take that ability away from users<:polyok:1482661265389125652> . **People who have auto redeem off should be able to redeem their positions themselves.** Thank you guys <:trumpok:1480177373017276598> <:poly:843948920093540405> <:polyflag:1480239209209139250>
I don't know if anybody else has reported this but I have my profile set to **not auto redeem** but it continuously auto redeems my positions. > humbly, imo the team is seriously sleeping on the User experience of redeeming positions. > > There is **no addition to the portfolio when you redeem winning positions**. I understand the way the PNL logic is written is why this happens, but it would be a lot better if the experience of winning a prediction was more pronounced re: the effect it had on the portfolio. As is, no matter what your size is, **when you make a prediction that is correct, you never get to see your portfolio increase by that full profit** (unless you only make one prediction at a time and you simply buy and hold till expiry) > > This dampens if not entirely mutes the experience of winning for new traders. the hope of ***winning*** is why they play the game, what makes them come back. But it is tough to get hooked on a feeling the platform will not allow you to feel, even when you are correct. This is why, even if it does not affect the portfolio, **it is still at least something to be able to manually redeem winning positions into cash**, please don't take that ability away from users<:polyok:1482661265389125652> . **People who have auto redeem off should be able to redeem their positions themselves.** Thank you guys <:trumpok:1480177373017276598> <:poly:843948920093540405> <:polyflag:1480239209209139250>
Would love an explainer from the team on this one. IDK if Rex put them through a guilt trip from hell because they clarified against him last time or what? but seriously, it is directly against Polymarket's interests to become known as a place that hosts markets with rules like: > If no 2026 New York 8th District Democratic House Primary takes place, this market will resolve to “Other.” and when there is *no democratic House primary in NY 8th District*, they say, actually this market will not resolve to "other". Takes a special type of re-tart to to try and make winning trades in a place such as this
Would love an explainer from the team on this one. IDK if Rex put them through a guilt trip from hell because they clarified against him last time or what? but seriously, it is directly against Polymarket's interests to become known as a place that hosts markets with rules like: > If no 2026 New York 8th District Democratic House Primary takes place, this market will resolve to “Other.” and when there is *no democratic House primary in NY 8th District*, they say, actually this market will not resolve to "other". Takes a special type of re-tart to to try and make winning trades in a place such as this
Still praying for a little more work on the PnL <:polyok:1482661265389125652> 1. would greatly improve the user experience if PNL was displayed more accurately and individually per market. 2. Still on the sports page you cannot hover over your positions and see the realized and unrealized breakdown of your PNL for the Market. It works in markets like the one you have shown there if you hover over the return, but never in sports. This is a years' old request atp. 3. Still after many months, while PNL shows on most markets with only one bracket, it still will not for a multi bracket market, which many of the main markets are.. just a couple simple fixes that would really help out the random user <:trumpok:1480177373017276598>
Still praying for a little more work on the PnL <:polyok:1482661265389125652> 1. would greatly improve the user experience if PNL was displayed more accurately and individually per market. 2. Still on the sports page you cannot hover over your positions and see the realized and unrealized breakdown of your PNL for the Market. It works in markets like the one you have shown there if you hover over the return, but never in sports. This is a years' old request atp. 3. Still after many months, while PNL shows on most markets with only one bracket, it still will not for a multi bracket market, which many of the main markets are.. just a couple simple fixes that would really help out the random user <:trumpok:1480177373017276598>
to the dev who made the wheel of flags on the World Cup page user-spinnable— I fk with you bro! Shit is way more fun than it should be😆 That was a pleasant surprise though lol, keep cooking @ polyteam <@1361217824776786031>
to the dev who made the wheel of flags on the World Cup page user-spinnable— I fk with you bro! Shit is way more fun than it should be😆 That was a pleasant surprise though lol, keep cooking @ polyteam <@1361217824776786031>
But it is a shit rule, with you there, and it has probably cost these markets untold amounts of volume
But it is a shit rule, with you there, and it has probably cost these markets untold amounts of volume
to be fair Billy, that's not "precedent". You don't generally have to wait until 12:00 AM to try to lock in a new precedent<:Bidensmile:1040247925420339251> That's the earlier bracket nullification house rule that has been adopted by PM and Uma for convenience.
to be fair Billy, that's not "precedent". You don't generally have to wait until 12:00 AM to try to lock in a new precedent<:Bidensmile:1040247925420339251> That's the earlier bracket nullification house rule that has been adopted by PM and Uma for convenience.
ggs
ggs
Nah, that was just for all the other ceasefire announcement markets, not this one <:Bidensmile:1040247925420339251> . All these dudes with two weeks on the server decide how we resolve, and that's their ruling, so what can we do?
Nah, that was just for all the other ceasefire announcement markets, not this one <:Bidensmile:1040247925420339251> . All these dudes with two weeks on the server decide how we resolve, and that's their ruling, so what can we do?
> but i think most of us (and rest of world) are unsure if there's actually going to be a signing tomorrow and I think the people 'thinking' this, bet "no" because they did not think an announcement was going to happen, and now that an announcement has clearly happened, they are opting for the opportunists' route, feigning indignance and move the goalposts to something **completely beyond the scope of what this wager was on** to give themselves a hope at surviving what should be a clear loss <:coachlook:944658505032400896> And I ain't mad at 'em, but the idea that this has anything to do with whether or not there will actually be a signing is a squirm of titanic proportions imo
> but i think most of us (and rest of world) are unsure if there's actually going to be a signing tomorrow and I think the people 'thinking' this, bet "no" because they did not think an announcement was going to happen, and now that an announcement has clearly happened, they are opting for the opportunists' route, feigning indignance and move the goalposts to something **completely beyond the scope of what this wager was on** to give themselves a hope at surviving what should be a clear loss <:coachlook:944658505032400896> And I ain't mad at 'em, but the idea that this has anything to do with whether or not there will actually be a signing is a squirm of titanic proportions imo
> So are we going to resolve based on face value, or based on actual state of world? To answer that question one only need to look at what the rules call for. Think about how different of a market it would be "resolving to the actual state of the world," in this case. How does that even play out? Doesn't it make every announcement null and void until it actually happens? The announcement is not enough to satisfy the "announcement of an agreement" requisite, only if the thing that was agreed upon is actually carried out is the announcement of agreement satisfied?
> So are we going to resolve based on face value, or based on actual state of world? To answer that question one only need to look at what the rules call for. Think about how different of a market it would be "resolving to the actual state of the world," in this case. How does that even play out? Doesn't it make every announcement null and void until it actually happens? The announcement is not enough to satisfy the "announcement of an agreement" requisite, only if the thing that was agreed upon is actually carried out is the announcement of agreement satisfied?
From when the agreement to extend the ceasefire (or cessation of hostilities) is announced**
From when the agreement to extend the ceasefire (or cessation of hostilities) is announced**
I think you're agreeing? because in #2 you have not made a trade but you have made an agreement to make a trade. This is an "announces an agreement" market.
I think you're agreeing? because in #2 you have not made a trade but you have made an agreement to make a trade. This is an "announces an agreement" market.
the truth never seemed to matter on all of the ceasefire announcement markets when people kept blowing each other up, and stating that a ceasefire was meaningless as long as enemy combatants were still in their land, or while there was a military blockade ongoing, and still those ceasefire markets resolved to "y", because they were announced, when most of them were never more than tentatively true at best.
the truth never seemed to matter on all of the ceasefire announcement markets when people kept blowing each other up, and stating that a ceasefire was meaningless as long as enemy combatants were still in their land, or while there was a military blockade ongoing, and still those ceasefire markets resolved to "y", because they were announced, when most of them were never more than tentatively true at best.
Can you point to a single thing in the rules that implies that they're looking for the truth in any capacity?
Can you point to a single thing in the rules that implies that they're looking for the truth in any capacity?
Pack it up boys, he's got us <:Bidensmile:1040247925420339251>
Pack it up boys, he's got us <:Bidensmile:1040247925420339251>
Bunch of law scholars eh? <:Bidensmile:1040247925420339251> if you tell people you're signing the divorce papers tomorrow, you have long since agreed with your partner to get a divorce
Bunch of law scholars eh? <:Bidensmile:1040247925420339251> if you tell people you're signing the divorce papers tomorrow, you have long since agreed with your partner to get a divorce
but whatever hopefully they'll just sign, and I guess we'll all have won some bonus bet we didn't even know we were betting on... Not a feeling too unfamiliar around these parts <:Bidensmile:1040247925420339251>
but whatever hopefully they'll just sign, and I guess we'll all have won some bonus bet we didn't even know we were betting on... Not a feeling too unfamiliar around these parts <:Bidensmile:1040247925420339251>
I mean there's reporting now
I mean there's reporting now
Bonker says agreeing to a peace framework and making an announcement about it does not qualify for rules requiring peace framework and an announcement about it
Bonker says agreeing to a peace framework and making an announcement about it does not qualify for rules requiring peace framework and an announcement about it
It explicitly says that in the rules thonker
It explicitly says that in the rules thonker
Polymarket