PolymarketWhat market? But yes, "today" is a compound word.
What market? But yes, "today" is a compound word.
Thonker参与话题 26消息总数 1397
该用户的聊天记录定位。
聊天记录
共 1397 条，显示第 251-300 条"where" 🥀
"where" 🥀
https://tenor.com/view/saul-saul-goodman-saulsweep-better-call-saul-better-call-saul-meme-gif-25363585
https://tenor.com/view/saul-saul-goodman-saulsweep-better-call-saul-better-call-saul-meme-gif-25363585
How did this guy spoof his PnL?
How did this guy spoof his PnL?
https://polymarket.com/@corelliancoder
https://polymarket.com/@corelliancoder
Clarif prediction: > Per the rules, "this market will resolve to "Yes" if Iran publicly agrees to end all enrichment of uranium." The clause in the signed memorandum of understanding published on June 17, stating that "the Islamic Republic will maintain the current status quo of its nuclear program" does not qualify.
Clarif prediction: > Per the rules, "this market will resolve to "Yes" if Iran publicly agrees to end all enrichment of uranium." The clause in the signed memorandum of understanding published on June 17, stating that "the Islamic Republic will maintain the current status quo of its nuclear program" does not qualify.
1h7m
1h7m
Yes.
Yes.
my bad
my bad
right, duh
right, duh
How? It's at 25c rn
How? It's at 25c rn
80% ig
80% ig
P4
P4
status quo is undefined
status quo is undefined
Clandestine ops would be in-line with the status quo.
Clandestine ops would be in-line with the status quo.
Carnegie Nuclear Policy disagrees with them. Are they wrong? The obvious truth is that this was written intentionally to be obscure and not force Iran into committing to enriching the production of uranium.
Carnegie Nuclear Policy disagrees with them. Are they wrong? The obvious truth is that this was written intentionally to be obscure and not force Iran into committing to enriching the production of uranium.
This is what those with nuclear expertise are saying
This is what those with nuclear expertise are saying
James Acton, co-director of Carnegie Nuclear Policy states that > "The "status quo" provision is problematic because the "status quo" is undefined. If Iran currently has a clandestine enrichment program, can that continue?" https://x.com/james_acton32/status/2067363521910780027
James Acton, co-director of Carnegie Nuclear Policy states that > "The "status quo" provision is problematic because the "status quo" is undefined. If Iran currently has a clandestine enrichment program, can that continue?" https://x.com/james_acton32/status/2067363521910780027
afaik Bourse and Bazaar doesn't have nuclear expertise
afaik Bourse and Bazaar doesn't have nuclear expertise
He was talking about after the 60 days this is irrelevant frankly
He was talking about after the 60 days this is irrelevant frankly
Sold out of my N earlier, wasn't sure they'd pre-clarif. Now that they have I got back in
Sold out of my N earlier, wasn't sure they'd pre-clarif. Now that they have I got back in
Restarting assumes they aren't doing it right now. What if they are? Continuing that program wouldn't break the status quo.
Restarting assumes they aren't doing it right now. What if they are? Continuing that program wouldn't break the status quo.
Polymarket seems to care about technicalities lately
Polymarket seems to care about technicalities lately
Nobody knows for sure if they are or can enrich or not
Nobody knows for sure if they are or can enrich or not
That would be breaking the status quo. Keeping up a secret nuclear program wouldn't be.
That would be breaking the status quo. Keeping up a secret nuclear program wouldn't be.
**unspecified status quo**
**unspecified status quo**
See above, not the same but *effectively* the same retarding halting
See above, not the same but *effectively* the same retarding halting
Kalshi basically said this was a no, if it matters
Kalshi basically said this was a no, if it matters
https://x.com/james_acton32/status/2067363521910780027
https://x.com/james_acton32/status/2067363521910780027
If their status quo is furtively enriching at a clandestine facility, this clause would not preclude them from doing so
If their status quo is furtively enriching at a clandestine facility, this clause would not preclude them from doing so
nobody does
nobody does
Vance's statements aren't referring to the status quo clause in the MoU
Vance's statements aren't referring to the status quo clause in the MoU
<@941405798096076880> <@1212792946341183578> My thoughts on the nuclear enrichment bet
<@941405798096076880> <@1212792946341183578> My thoughts on the nuclear enrichment bet
I think they clarify since they clarified troop withdrawal yesterday
I think they clarify since they clarified troop withdrawal yesterday
Goes N in clarif goes Y in UMA
Goes N in clarif goes Y in UMA
Can you not appreciate that "further enrichment" is vague? It can be used both ways.
Can you not appreciate that "further enrichment" is vague? It can be used both ways.
Should just resolve on MoU text
Should just resolve on MoU text
But that still makes it a No
But that still makes it a No
I disagree that anything is an obvious distortion it's just ambiguous
I disagree that anything is an obvious distortion it's just ambiguous
> A few crude bombs could be built without further enrichment to 90 percent by using the less-effective 60 percent enriched material, if any of it survived the Israeli and American attacks.
> A few crude bombs could be built without further enrichment to 90 percent by using the less-effective 60 percent enriched material, if any of it survived the Israeli and American attacks.
https://thebulletin.org/2025/07/time-for-iran-to-make-a-no-enrichment-nuclear-deal/ Here's one
https://thebulletin.org/2025/07/time-for-iran-to-make-a-no-enrichment-nuclear-deal/ Here's one
Next time use articles from 2025 and not 2021 and 2010 for the further enrichment thing 🤣
Next time use articles from 2025 and not 2021 and 2010 for the further enrichment thing 🤣
It would be a Yes if the MoU explicitly called for a halt to uranium enrichment for 60 days but it didn't
It would be a Yes if the MoU explicitly called for a halt to uranium enrichment for 60 days but it didn't
That's not a consensus
That's not a consensus
There is reporting favoring both directions
There is reporting favoring both directions
Because that's the only thing that constitutes a definitive agreement
Because that's the only thing that constitutes a definitive agreement
So the tiebreaker should be the literal text of the MoU which is obscure
So the tiebreaker should be the literal text of the MoU which is obscure
I think ultimately both sides can cherry pick whatever they want
I think ultimately both sides can cherry pick whatever they want
I just saw it about 15 minutes ago or so
I just saw it about 15 minutes ago or so
I didn't see it
I didn't see it