该用户的聊天记录定位。
How Iran x US per permanent peace deal resolved to YES and we have a market for ceasefire over? :)))) https://polymarket.com/event/trump-announces-us-x-iran-ceasefire-over-byptptpt-20260607232555290 unless polyscam is doing scam as always
How Iran x US per permanent peace deal resolved to YES and we have a market for ceasefire over? :)))) https://polymarket.com/event/trump-announces-us-x-iran-ceasefire-over-byptptpt-20260607232555290 unless polyscam is doing scam as always
Answer this Polymarket team: https://x.com/0xGuts0ti/status/2069304006740943319
Answer this Polymarket team: https://x.com/0xGuts0ti/status/2069304006740943319
> Trump on Iran deal: > "No it's not final, it's a memorandum of understanding and If I don't like it, we will go back to shooting at them, dropping bombs on their head. If I don't like it, If they don't behave, we will go right back to dropping bombs right smacking in the middle of their head, cause they misbehaved for 47 years." https://polymarket.com/event/us-x-iran-permanent-peace-deal-by GO WITH RULES NOT UMA WHALES POLYMARKET.
> Trump on Iran deal: > "No it's not final, it's a memorandum of understanding and If I don't like it, we will go back to shooting at them, dropping bombs on their head. If I don't like it, If they don't behave, we will go right back to dropping bombs right smacking in the middle of their head, cause they misbehaved for 47 years." https://polymarket.com/event/us-x-iran-permanent-peace-deal-by GO WITH RULES NOT UMA WHALES POLYMARKET.
Is this permanent peace deal? REALLY? You are gonna get sued so badly MR.POLYMARKET. > Trump on Iran deal: > "No it's not final, it's a memorandum of understanding and If I don't like it, we will go back to shooting at them, dropping bombs on their head. If I don't like it, If they don't behave, we will go right back to dropping bombs right smacking in the middle of their head, cause they misbehaved for 47 years."
Is this permanent peace deal? REALLY? You are gonna get sued so badly MR.POLYMARKET. > Trump on Iran deal: > "No it's not final, it's a memorandum of understanding and If I don't like it, we will go back to shooting at them, dropping bombs on their head. If I don't like it, If they don't behave, we will go right back to dropping bombs right smacking in the middle of their head, cause they misbehaved for 47 years."
support this too: https://x.com/GrinPirate/status/2067115796438843599
support this too: https://x.com/GrinPirate/status/2067115796438843599
rules go in, vibes come out
rules go in, vibes come out
It stands for "Unclear Market Authority"
It stands for "Unclear Market Authority"
This is exactly how Polymarket loses trust: strict wording before trading, loose interpretation at resolution. If an MOU with future signing and unresolved follow-up talks counts as a permanent peace deal, then the market was miswritten from the start.
This is exactly how Polymarket loses trust: strict wording before trading, loose interpretation at resolution. If an MOU with future signing and unresolved follow-up talks counts as a permanent peace deal, then the market was miswritten from the start.
You’re quoting the definition, not the establishment test. The rule still requires clear confirmation from both governments that a qualifying permanent deal was definitively established. “Agreement/framework reached” is not enough if signing was later and core terms were still pending. Future strikes aren’t the issue. The issue is whether this was truly permanent and definitive on June 15.
You’re quoting the definition, not the establishment test. The rule still requires clear confirmation from both governments that a qualifying permanent deal was definitively established. “Agreement/framework reached” is not enough if signing was later and core terms were still pending. Future strikes aren’t the issue. The issue is whether this was truly permanent and definitive on June 15.
Yes holders keep quoting Pakistan, Iran, and media headlines, but the rules require clear confirmation from both the US and Iran. Where is the US government statement saying this is a permanent peace deal definitively established by June 15? Not “an agreement was reached,” not “a framework,” not “signing Friday,” not “60 days of talks.” A permanent peace deal. If that proof does not exist, this should resolve No. The market requires conclusive evidence, not inference from headlines.
Yes holders keep quoting Pakistan, Iran, and media headlines, but the rules require clear confirmation from both the US and Iran. Where is the US government statement saying this is a permanent peace deal definitively established by June 15? Not “an agreement was reached,” not “a framework,” not “signing Friday,” not “60 days of talks.” A permanent peace deal. If that proof does not exist, this should resolve No. The market requires conclusive evidence, not inference from headlines.
If missile strikes can resume after this “permanent peace deal” because the 60-day nuclear/sanctions process fails, then what exactly was permanent on June 15? The issue is not signature alone. The issue is that the supposed permanent deal was still conditional on future negotiations. A definitive permanent peace deal should not depend on whether a later technical process succeeds.
If missile strikes can resume after this “permanent peace deal” because the 60-day nuclear/sanctions process fails, then what exactly was permanent on June 15? The issue is not signature alone. The issue is that the supposed permanent deal was still conditional on future negotiations. A definitive permanent peace deal should not depend on whether a later technical process succeeds.
Those quotes show why Yes has an argument, but they do not settle the market. The rules do not say “resolve Yes if reports use the words permanent peace deal.” They require either signed/formally adopted written agreement, or clear public confirmation from both the US and Iran that a qualifying permanent agreement was definitively established. Pakistan’s statement cannot substitute for US confirmation. Iran’s statement helps, but if the US position and credible reporting still describe this as an MOU/framework with signing scheduled later and follow-on negotiations pending, then it is not a definitive establishment of a permanent peace deal by the deadline. The key distinction is: permanent wording inside a draft/framework is not the same as a definitively established permanent peace deal.
Those quotes show why Yes has an argument, but they do not settle the market. The rules do not say “resolve Yes if reports use the words permanent peace deal.” They require either signed/formally adopted written agreement, or clear public confirmation from both the US and Iran that a qualifying permanent agreement was definitively established. Pakistan’s statement cannot substitute for US confirmation. Iran’s statement helps, but if the US position and credible reporting still describe this as an MOU/framework with signing scheduled later and follow-on negotiations pending, then it is not a definitive establishment of a permanent peace deal by the deadline. The key distinction is: permanent wording inside a draft/framework is not the same as a definitively established permanent peace deal.
nobody did dispute on that unlike permanent peace market. Based on its rules it was open ended buddy
nobody did dispute on that unlike permanent peace market. Based on its rules it was open ended buddy
Clarification is not the same as intervention. UMA should vote based on the market rules, but if the rules are being interpreted as “any peace framework = permanent peace deal,” then a clarification is exactly what is needed. The market did not ask whether a framework/MOU was announced. It asked whether a permanent peace deal was definitively established by the deadline. Signing after the deadline, 60 days of further negotiations, and unresolved core terms are directly relevant. Leaving that to token-weighted voting without clarification is how Polymarket gets another Ukraine-style reputational mess.
Clarification is not the same as intervention. UMA should vote based on the market rules, but if the rules are being interpreted as “any peace framework = permanent peace deal,” then a clarification is exactly what is needed. The market did not ask whether a framework/MOU was announced. It asked whether a permanent peace deal was definitively established by the deadline. Signing after the deadline, 60 days of further negotiations, and unresolved core terms are directly relevant. Leaving that to token-weighted voting without clarification is how Polymarket gets another Ukraine-style reputational mess.
There should be definitely a clarification from Polymarket on this one. I don't like see another Ukraine Russia mienral deal again: https://polymarket.com/event/us-x-iran-permanent-peace-deal-by/us-x-iran-permanent-peace-deal-by-june-15-2026-734-856-129
There should be definitely a clarification from Polymarket on this one. I don't like see another Ukraine Russia mienral deal again: https://polymarket.com/event/us-x-iran-permanent-peace-deal-by/us-x-iran-permanent-peace-deal-by-june-15-2026-734-856-129
Polymarket