PolymarketI'm buying more, I don't think Bosaurum will screw this up
I'm buying more, I don't think Bosaurum will screw this up
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 351-400 条Them making a deal is obligatory
Them making a deal is obligatory
No, they commit to withdrawing troops **when** they make a deal later.
No, they commit to withdrawing troops **when** they make a deal later.
It's making me terribly nervous with him being on the same side as me
It's making me terribly nervous with him being on the same side as me
Can I pay analista to switch sides
Can I pay analista to switch sides
and in
and in
The word is lose
The word is lose
Making me nervous with <@1391204014640594987> on my side
Making me nervous with <@1391204014640594987> on my side
stop spamming please
stop spamming please
> The United States of America further undertakes to remove its forces from the proximity of the Islamic Republic of Iran within 30 days after the final deal. Don't get how this isn't a definitive agreement, especially when they are obligated to achieving the deal
> The United States of America further undertakes to remove its forces from the proximity of the Islamic Republic of Iran within 30 days after the final deal. Don't get how this isn't a definitive agreement, especially when they are obligated to achieving the deal
I'll probably just stay out of it
I'll probably just stay out of it
I lowk lean towards No but I get the Yes argument and they'll probably push it through
I lowk lean towards No but I get the Yes argument and they'll probably push it through
Tbf the No argument has some merit because the freezing clause that was previously present per Reuters has been stripped.
Tbf the No argument has some merit because the freezing clause that was previously present per Reuters has been stripped.
I told them this would happen if they didn't reign the spam in
I told them this would happen if they didn't reign the spam in
idk why they took away the 30 second slowmode
idk why they took away the 30 second slowmode
The CNN and Bloomberg text from earlier in the day was misreporting that was from an old draft from May that was being circulated around G7 for some reason, but the text that NYT has is complete, from the White House.
The CNN and Bloomberg text from earlier in the day was misreporting that was from an old draft from May that was being circulated around G7 for some reason, but the text that NYT has is complete, from the White House.
White House gave it to several press outlets yesterday, in full
White House gave it to several press outlets yesterday, in full
lol this isn't even correct, NYT has the full text
lol this isn't even correct, NYT has the full text
Did you watch it
Did you watch it
Kalshi went No on the same rules: https://kalshi.com/markets/kxprattconcede/spencer-pratt-concede/kxprattconcede-27jan01?op_market_ticker=KXPRATTCONCEDE-27JAN01-JUN15
Kalshi went No on the same rules: https://kalshi.com/markets/kxprattconcede/spencer-pratt-concede/kxprattconcede-27jan01?op_market_ticker=KXPRATTCONCEDE-27JAN01-JUN15
bm chart profile ithinkthisisgod
bm chart profile ithinkthisisgod
the spam here is getting out hand
the spam here is getting out hand
That doesn't change the fact that in the MoU they are explicitly obligated to achieving the final deal, if anything it gives a soft enforcement corollary
That doesn't change the fact that in the MoU they are explicitly obligated to achieving the final deal, if anything it gives a soft enforcement corollary
wasn't that only 20k
wasn't that only 20k
😂
😂
well shit it's at 90c now
well shit it's at 90c now
There is no signature of an **agreement** with only one party signing.
There is no signature of an **agreement** with only one party signing.
<@941405798096076880> Clarify P2 if this was intended to count. I'm just having a hard time understand why Trump-only signature would count if there's an early resolve clause if a joint US-Iran signature **immediately resolves the market to No.** This entails that decorative signatures like this were only meant to count if they were done jointly.
<@941405798096076880> Clarify P2 if this was intended to count. I'm just having a hard time understand why Trump-only signature would count if there's an early resolve clause if a joint US-Iran signature **immediately resolves the market to No.** This entails that decorative signatures like this were only meant to count if they were done jointly.
He signed the document digitally, and autographed it physically
He signed the document digitally, and autographed it physically
I'm aware, I'm not denying he autographed something
I'm aware, I'm not denying he autographed something
> including by signing a physical copy of the agreement or another signature page that forms part of the agreement. Electronic or digital signatures will not qualify. This clause is in both of the rulesets, it's not meant to include this stuff
> including by signing a physical copy of the agreement or another signature page that forms part of the agreement. Electronic or digital signatures will not qualify. This clause is in both of the rulesets, it's not meant to include this stuff
seems stupid to resolve this to yes when this market is at 32c
seems stupid to resolve this to yes when this market is at 32c
They are either both P4 or both P2
They are either both P4 or both P2
It's an autograph not a signature
It's an autograph not a signature
A fan copy a week later should count if this is a Yes.
A fan copy a week later should count if this is a Yes.
I am
I am
The market was not intended to resolve from a fucking autograph
The market was not intended to resolve from a fucking autograph
Pretty sure it was physical but why would they put this here if it was intended to count: > If the United States and Iran complete the physical signing of the agreement (e.g., through a signing ceremony) and Trump does not physically sign the agreement, this market will resolve immediately to “No”. This means the Iranians need to physically sign it too, or there is no reason to close the market early while there is still time for Trump to do a qualifying single-party signature. It's being framed as an autograph.
Pretty sure it was physical but why would they put this here if it was intended to count: > If the United States and Iran complete the physical signing of the agreement (e.g., through a signing ceremony) and Trump does not physically sign the agreement, this market will resolve immediately to “No”. This means the Iranians need to physically sign it too, or there is no reason to close the market early while there is still time for Trump to do a qualifying single-party signature. It's being framed as an autograph.
The early resolve clause makes no sense if this was intended to count
The early resolve clause makes no sense if this was intended to count
But it's resolving on a fringe case right now
But it's resolving on a fringe case right now
That makes zero sense, sorry. This market is about Trump signing a deal with the Iranians. There is no reporting the Iranians have signed a hard copy.
That makes zero sense, sorry. This market is about Trump signing a deal with the Iranians. There is no reporting the Iranians have signed a hard copy.
So the intent was to have the market resolve to No even though Yes criteria can still be fulfilled?
So the intent was to have the market resolve to No even though Yes criteria can still be fulfilled?
So it can resolve No even though he can still autograph a copy by himself?
So it can resolve No even though he can still autograph a copy by himself?
There is no reason to close the market early if this was intended to count.
There is no reason to close the market early if this was intended to count.
Am I crazy or is the market crazy
Am I crazy or is the market crazy
But there would still be time for Trump to sign another copy without the Iranians.
But there would still be time for Trump to sign another copy without the Iranians.
Why would they put this in the rules if it was intended to count even if the Iranians didn't sign a hard copy? > If the United States and Iran complete the physical signing of the agreement (e.g., through a signing ceremony) and Trump does not physically sign the agreement, this market will resolve immediately to “No”.
Why would they put this in the rules if it was intended to count even if the Iranians didn't sign a hard copy? > If the United States and Iran complete the physical signing of the agreement (e.g., through a signing ceremony) and Trump does not physically sign the agreement, this market will resolve immediately to “No”.
You can revise a previous NOTAM to open/close airports
You can revise a previous NOTAM to open/close airports
Yeah Cheung said that
Yeah Cheung said that
I don't think I can be blamed that much
I don't think I can be blamed that much