PolymarketYes there are fairly strong points for both sides
Yes there are fairly strong points for both sides
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 301-350 条This person is co-director of Carnegie Nuclear Policy
This person is co-director of Carnegie Nuclear Policy
https://x.com/james_acton32/status/2067363521910780027 https://x.com/james_acton32/status/2067369275824722018
https://x.com/james_acton32/status/2067363521910780027 https://x.com/james_acton32/status/2067369275824722018
In your block of text it's there
In your block of text it's there
What's the issue with the Nabavian quote
What's the issue with the Nabavian quote
If the quote is accurate it's very clear that he means the "refrain from enriching" interpretation but that doesn't constitute an official agreement
If the quote is accurate it's very clear that he means the "refrain from enriching" interpretation but that doesn't constitute an official agreement
It's intentionally empty/obscure language
It's intentionally empty/obscure language
An [ISIS Report](https://isis-online.org/isis-reports/analysis-of-iaea-iran-verification-and-monitoring-and-npt-safeguards-reports-june-2026) notes the following: > The IAEA is unable to verify the suspension of Iran’s uranium enrichment, plutonium reprocessing, and heavy water production programs, as required under UN Security Council (UNSC) resolutions reimposed in October 2025, and Iran is denying the IAEA access, information, and cooperation.
An [ISIS Report](https://isis-online.org/isis-reports/analysis-of-iaea-iran-verification-and-monitoring-and-npt-safeguards-reports-june-2026) notes the following: > The IAEA is unable to verify the suspension of Iran’s uranium enrichment, plutonium reprocessing, and heavy water production programs, as required under UN Security Council (UNSC) resolutions reimposed in October 2025, and Iran is denying the IAEA access, information, and cooperation.
And nobody knows for certain the current normal rate
And nobody knows for certain the current normal rate
> * Pending a final agreement, Iran would maintain the current status of its nuclear programme, refraining from further uranium enrichment and expansion of nuclear facilities. This is the best P2 argument imo, but it's unclear what "refrain from furthering" means, it can mean "don't enrich at all" or "don't enrich past your current normal rate"
> * Pending a final agreement, Iran would maintain the current status of its nuclear programme, refraining from further uranium enrichment and expansion of nuclear facilities. This is the best P2 argument imo, but it's unclear what "refrain from furthering" means, it can mean "don't enrich at all" or "don't enrich past your current normal rate"
I just really don't like using how the media is portraying this especially when a lot of them were inaccurately claiming the MoU was a 60-day ceasefire
I just really don't like using how the media is portraying this especially when a lot of them were inaccurately claiming the MoU was a 60-day ceasefire
The clause was intentionally designed to be unclear
The clause was intentionally designed to be unclear
I don't like looking at any outside reporting on an market about an agreement other than the text of the agreement
I don't like looking at any outside reporting on an market about an agreement other than the text of the agreement
I just read the MoU text, rules clearly satisfied
I just read the MoU text, rules clearly satisfied
Troops was simple for me I didn't look at any reporting on it
Troops was simple for me I didn't look at any reporting on it
This is tricky enough that it's basically 50/50 if they clarify
This is tricky enough that it's basically 50/50 if they clarify
Troops was a clear P2 imo, this is unclear to me, I don't think either side is a scam but P4 is the marginally better resolve
Troops was a clear P2 imo, this is unclear to me, I don't think either side is a scam but P4 is the marginally better resolve
> Per the rules, this market requires that "Iran publicly agrees to end all enrichment of uranium". The US-Iran Memorandum of Understanding states that "pending a final agreement, they will maintain the status quo: Iran will maintain the status quo on its nuclear program, and the United States will not impose new sanctions on Iran or strengthen its forces in the region", and that "the two parties also agreed to discuss the issue of enrichment and other mutually agreed matters related to the Islamic Republic of Iran’s nuclear needs, based on a satisfactory framework being agreed upon in the final deal." This does not constitute a qualifying announcement of an agreement by Iran to end all enrichment of uranium.
> Per the rules, this market requires that "Iran publicly agrees to end all enrichment of uranium". The US-Iran Memorandum of Understanding states that "pending a final agreement, they will maintain the status quo: Iran will maintain the status quo on its nuclear program, and the United States will not impose new sanctions on Iran or strengthen its forces in the region", and that "the two parties also agreed to discuss the issue of enrichment and other mutually agreed matters related to the Islamic Republic of Iran’s nuclear needs, based on a satisfactory framework being agreed upon in the final deal." This does not constitute a qualifying announcement of an agreement by Iran to end all enrichment of uranium.
Freeze is highly ambiguous
Freeze is highly ambiguous
It could mean no enrichment period or no breakout/upblending attempts
It could mean no enrichment period or no breakout/upblending attempts
> * Pending a final agreement, Iran would maintain the current status of its nuclear programme, refraining from further uranium enrichment and expansion of nuclear facilities. Further enrichment and expansion is very vague
> * Pending a final agreement, Iran would maintain the current status of its nuclear programme, refraining from further uranium enrichment and expansion of nuclear facilities. Further enrichment and expansion is very vague
Even "freeze" is vague
Even "freeze" is vague
I don't think Poly will use what's basically random ppl's opinions
I don't think Poly will use what's basically random ppl's opinions
UMA goes P2 Poly goes P4 imo
UMA goes P2 Poly goes P4 imo
The text in the MoU re the enrichment issue is intentionally left obscure with the language "status quo"
The text in the MoU re the enrichment issue is intentionally left obscure with the language "status quo"
With troops they clarified directly with text from the MoU which had obligatory language.
With troops they clarified directly with text from the MoU which had obligatory language.
Wikipedia has a profound liberal bias.
Wikipedia has a profound liberal bias.
What a joke obv nobody won
What a joke obv nobody won
Lmao Wikipedia says Iran won 🤣
Lmao Wikipedia says Iran won 🤣
Extremely bullish for Y
Extremely bullish for Y
Because they haven't made a formal commitment to an enrichment freeze in my opinion
Because they haven't made a formal commitment to an enrichment freeze in my opinion
But I think you guys will probably win so I'm not buying N either
But I think you guys will probably win so I'm not buying N either
Don't have any shares here but Y feels like a bad buy to me at 68c
Don't have any shares here but Y feels like a bad buy to me at 68c
I just don't think we should be doing that
I just don't think we should be doing that
I think the answer is no, and that that part of the MoU was intentionally written in an amorphous way
I think the answer is no, and that that part of the MoU was intentionally written in an amorphous way
This was the article I was talking about: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/iran-says-draft-us-deal-includes-oil-sanctions-waiver-nuclear-limits-asset-2026-06-14/ Interesting that it's still characterized that way after the final text was out, I do take your point. I guess it's just a question of if we should be resolving these things based on external facts about the world that aren't literally written in any binding commitments.
This was the article I was talking about: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/iran-says-draft-us-deal-includes-oil-sanctions-waiver-nuclear-limits-asset-2026-06-14/ Interesting that it's still characterized that way after the final text was out, I do take your point. I guess it's just a question of if we should be resolving these things based on external facts about the world that aren't literally written in any binding commitments.
They concern enterily different questions
They concern enterily different questions
People feeling they're correlated doesn't mean they actually are
People feeling they're correlated doesn't mean they actually are
It should resolve based on what's literally written in the MoU
It should resolve based on what's literally written in the MoU
I don't like Y because that's some amorphous external fact about the world that nobody knows for sure
I don't like Y because that's some amorphous external fact about the world that nobody knows for sure
What? They have nothing to do with each other
What? They have nothing to do with each other
I guess in general I just don't like resolving this stuff based on some external fact about the world that's not in the text
I guess in general I just don't like resolving this stuff based on some external fact about the world that's not in the text
I'll take a look, probably shouldn't be arguing it when I don't have the articles in front of me
I'll take a look, probably shouldn't be arguing it when I don't have the articles in front of me
Everyone knows the truth
Everyone knows the truth
all hail Bosaurum Don't rug me bro
all hail Bosaurum Don't rug me bro
what's gross
what's gross
**required**
**required**
imcrine
imcrine
It's not certain my hooker shows up tonight but I still paid her for sex — Billy, probably
It's not certain my hooker shows up tonight but I still paid her for sex — Billy, probably
Exactly
Exactly