KalshiI agree it should resolve, i'm just speculating on what the holdup could possibly be
I agree it should resolve, i'm just speculating on what the holdup could possibly be
Nate参与话题 25消息总数 503
该用户的聊天记录定位。
聊天记录
共 503 条，显示第 401-450 条is the problem "new team" verbage? he signed a contract with his existing tem
is the problem "new team" verbage? he signed a contract with his existing tem
better than 90% of ideas users' strategies
better than 90% of ideas users' strategies
volume was already low, didn't need you fighting me for fills
volume was already low, didn't need you fighting me for fills
once i saw the crowd i knew it was a knicks N
once i saw the crowd i knew it was a knicks N
Or maybe that's just me
Or maybe that's just me
All the volume is on Knicks mention
All the volume is on Knicks mention
Disagree, it's gonna hit a bunch
Disagree, it's gonna hit a bunch
If you have evidence he was there, share with the class. Otherwise it looks like you were the benefactor of a poly US mistake. I don't know if they will try to reverse that and take the winnings back, I don't know anything about poly US, but I found nothing about bad Bunny last night, he has concerts in Spain all week, he could have jet back and forth last night but I found no evidence of him in my search
If you have evidence he was there, share with the class. Otherwise it looks like you were the benefactor of a poly US mistake. I don't know if they will try to reverse that and take the winnings back, I don't know anything about poly US, but I found nothing about bad Bunny last night, he has concerts in Spain all week, he could have jet back and forth last night but I found no evidence of him in my search
So poly US potential misresolve? Idk, you need more proof than that
So poly US potential misresolve? Idk, you need more proof than that
Polymarket has him at 6% to attend any game. Doesn't look like it paid out there. And I have no idea what you Googled, gotta be more specific, and don't trust AI
Polymarket has him at 6% to attend any game. Doesn't look like it paid out there. And I have no idea what you Googled, gotta be more specific, and don't trust AI
Don't think bad Bunny was there last night man. What makes you think he was? (Don't say you asked AI)
Don't think bad Bunny was there last night man. What makes you think he was? (Don't say you asked AI)
its only fair
its only fair
whoever bonds a strike first gets a 7 day timeout from kalshi. that way everyone gets a turn to fastclick
whoever bonds a strike first gets a 7 day timeout from kalshi. that way everyone gets a turn to fastclick
who cares about rules
who cares about rules
i learned my lesson, pop (g2) Y, bateman Y, source: <person> he was there
i learned my lesson, pop (g2) Y, bateman Y, source: <person> he was there
its only here we have to deal with source agencies (or we don't i guess and resolve on vibes/truth/whatever)
its only here we have to deal with source agencies (or we don't i guess and resolve on vibes/truth/whatever)
on poly this is plenty of evidence to go Y, nobody can argue he wasn't there and won't waste $500 disputing reality
on poly this is plenty of evidence to go Y, nobody can argue he wasn't there and won't waste $500 disputing reality
pretty sure he's a source agency. anyone ask if dumpster dwarf ran into Bateman?
pretty sure he's a source agency. anyone ask if dumpster dwarf ran into Bateman?
https://streamable.com/e2o2g7 and here's the clean arena video
https://streamable.com/e2o2g7 and here's the clean arena video
yeah same situation as pop g2
yeah same situation as pop g2
you mean just like jason bateman? yeah that's what we're currently discussing
you mean just like jason bateman? yeah that's what we're currently discussing
yeah i assume reality + price overrides source agency stickler. If the pop clip was posted here before closed yall could have forced it Y
yeah i assume reality + price overrides source agency stickler. If the pop clip was posted here before closed yall could have forced it Y
pete got bailed out, pop is still tbd
pete got bailed out, pop is still tbd
was he there? yes. is espn tiktok a source agency? no. does it matter? 🤷
was he there? yes. is espn tiktok a source agency? no. does it matter? 🤷
https://giphy.com/gifs/wtf-bruh-he-doesnt-know-RXtD0Rt2xrUxIvJYkP
https://giphy.com/gifs/wtf-bruh-he-doesnt-know-RXtD0Rt2xrUxIvJYkP
perfect. i never would have bought that much if that was in the rules. i knew the report was sketchy but the rules are the rules
perfect. i never would have bought that much if that was in the rules. i knew the report was sketchy but the rules are the rules
def not clear N, its contradictory at best
def not clear N, its contradictory at best
i do'nt care. not my argument
i do'nt care. not my argument
the rules don't say it resolves off whether hes there or not. it says it resolves off any source agency report
the rules don't say it resolves off whether hes there or not. it says it resolves off any source agency report
put it in the rules
put it in the rules
the contract says the underlying is source agency reports. rewrite the contract and the rules
the contract says the underlying is source agency reports. rewrite the contract and the rules
i bought only post-tweet pre-NYC appearance so yeah the average was high
i bought only post-tweet pre-NYC appearance so yeah the average was high
Am I surprised? no Was spike at the game? no Was the market rules satisfied by any source agency report? yes, and we know that source agency was valid because Tracy Y Did I buy Y because I thought he was there? no, I initially bought N because I didn't think he was there but flipped to Y because any source agency reported he was and I read the rules. The rules take priority over the title of the market almost every time, but not this time for some reason. Should Y buyers be refunded for buying based on the rules instead of the title? I think so Will they? doubt it **If the standard of proof is higher than ANY source agency report, meaning other reports can override Y with N based on Kalshi's interpretation, the rules need to be rewritten** If he had been photographed at the game but had been reported in NY during the game by a source, we'd all be arguing for Y. So there needs to something in the rules about how conflicting reports are handled because the current rule of "ANY source agency" is obviously not being followed
Am I surprised? no Was spike at the game? no Was the market rules satisfied by any source agency report? yes, and we know that source agency was valid because Tracy Y Did I buy Y because I thought he was there? no, I initially bought N because I didn't think he was there but flipped to Y because any source agency reported he was and I read the rules. The rules take priority over the title of the market almost every time, but not this time for some reason. Should Y buyers be refunded for buying based on the rules instead of the title? I think so Will they? doubt it **If the standard of proof is higher than ANY source agency report, meaning other reports can override Y with N based on Kalshi's interpretation, the rules need to be rewritten** If he had been photographed at the game but had been reported in NY during the game by a source, we'd all be arguing for Y. So there needs to something in the rules about how conflicting reports are handled because the current rule of "ANY source agency" is obviously not being followed
Overnight it got mogged before a 9am green box
Overnight it got mogged before a 9am green box
I'm arguing that they have an obligation to change the rules when they issue a resolution that contradicts the current rules
I'm arguing that they have an obligation to change the rules when they issue a resolution that contradicts the current rules
And every time it happens I think it should result in a rules rewrite
And every time it happens I think it should result in a rules rewrite
Not just more clear, the current rules are completely pointless
Not just more clear, the current rules are completely pointless
It's silly to write rules then intend to ignore them whenever
It's silly to write rules then intend to ignore them whenever
If they should rule to reality over the rules then the rules are pointless, delete them and write that kalshi decides based on totality of credible evidence since that's what you're saying they should do
If they should rule to reality over the rules then the rules are pointless, delete them and write that kalshi decides based on totality of credible evidence since that's what you're saying they should do
Gotta wait to see how Gregg and Tracy go to see how long the rant is
Gotta wait to see how Gregg and Tracy go to see how long the rant is
When it resolves I'll post my loss, write a rant about how bad the rules are in rules clarification channel and move on
When it resolves I'll post my loss, write a rant about how bad the rules are in rules clarification channel and move on
But we're going in circles
But we're going in circles
And I can point to the part of the contract that says the underlying is source agency reports
And I can point to the part of the contract that says the underlying is source agency reports
The rules don't require sufficient evidence, they require any source agency report which was met
The rules don't require sufficient evidence, they require any source agency report which was met
If the rules always said it was based on a totality of evidence or credible reports or literally any bar higher than "if any source agency reports" then I would have been much more hesitant buying
If the rules always said it was based on a totality of evidence or credible reports or literally any bar higher than "if any source agency reports" then I would have been much more hesitant buying
If/When it goes N my problem is with the rules
If/When it goes N my problem is with the rules
Thanks I guess
Thanks I guess
They're probably gonna wait the full 7 days looking for additional evidence or whatever
They're probably gonna wait the full 7 days looking for additional evidence or whatever
Jinx
Jinx