Diditrading
3 months ago
1) There is no proof Trump is involved. Evidence =/ conjecture. 2) This is a token sale not a token launch. The token are untradeable for the next 12 months. (btw these are the polymarket rules for an airdrop to resolve into "yes"; This market will resolve to "Yes" if Scroll launches a token and announces they have performed an airdrop between September 26 and December 31, 2024, 11:59 PM ET. Otherwise, this market will resolve to "No". For the purposes of this market "locked" tokens or non-swappable tokens will not suffice to resolve this market to "Yes". If polymarket is correct and follows its own rules this should resolve into "no"
adhoc-king
5 months ago
Like if you believe car is an asshole
Intuition
2 months ago
I'm sick and tired of them putting chemicals in the water turning the frickin frogs gay
fraud
2 months ago
Fox News EDITED their article and REMOVED IRAQ ATTACK and KEPT SYRIA/IRAN attack. General Consensus = NO MILITARY ACTION ON IRAQ
fraud
2 months ago
As previously stated, verbiage is important. Words like "may" or "suggest" do not constitute confirmation. Both the New York Times and Wall Street Journal provide ambiguous or inconclusive reporting, focusing primarily on Iranian territory. The fact that Israeli jets flew through Iraqi airspace does not meet the market's criteria for confirming military action on Iraqi soil. Furthermore, Iraq’s official denial of any strikes on its territory adds weight to the argument against a "Yes" resolution. The phrase "may" in any reporting, such as "Iran said Israel may have used Iraqi airspace," does not constitute definitive confirmation. The market requires explicit evidence of Israeli military action on Iraqi soil, and this has not been provided by any credible media outlet. The lack of any clear consensus, combined with Iraq's denial, means the conditions for a "Yes" resolution are not met. With these points in mind, this market should either resolve as No or remain marked as Too Early until clearer evidence emerges that supports direct military action on Iraqi territory. To resolve this prematurely as "Yes" would be to base the outcome on speculation, not confirmation.
top453
2 months ago
I recommend the market immediately remove the additional information, millions of dollars have flowed into this bet since it was released, far above the normal growth rate. Some people come in for 1% return, but risk losing everything.
fraud
2 months ago
WIKIPEDIA = NO MILITARY ACTION ON IRAQ | NO government confirmation = MARKET NO
DomCore
2 months ago
I hope I lose
fraud
2 months ago
No American, European or Middle Eastern media reported this! NO government official claimed or made a statement confirming But Polymarket tells you the opposite! 😂😂😂😂😂
Car
2 months ago
Why put Trump in the title when the rules don't care about Trump at all?
Pirates
3 months ago
Just told my buddy about a pizza place, I guess that means I launched the restaurant
notyourmothersmarket
4 months ago
yeah Trump has never said one thing and done another. This bet is over.
Caligulas.dog
4 months ago
So that should resolve the bet
fraud
2 months ago
I am in complete shock. Polymarkets OWN market summary says NO military action against Iraq. Iraq, Israel and US government officials did NOT confirm any military action against iraq. The conditions of this prediction requires a general consensus: so far only 1 NY article and the original FOX article retracted its claim and now have 'reports' without citing a source. Therefore rumours and no official confirmation No majority news outlets reporting on this creating a general consensus Now we have this prediction in the hands of UMA, UMA voters are corrupt and will VOTE YES just so they can profit of this bet whilst also holding power on the outcome. This is outrageous and looks VERY VERY bad for polymarket, even YES holders AGREE that there was no attack but they are still voting YES due to the platform rewarding bias and manipulators in the market. The truth is that there are no military action against IRAQ otherwise IRAQ would have confirmed it. Polymarket should take charge of this bet and part ways with UMA
Naturalnoob
3 months ago
© 2024 WorldLibertyFinancial, Inc. All Rights Reserved. *None of Donald J. Trump, any of his family members or any director, officer or employee of the Trump Organization, DT Marks DEFI LLC or any of their respective affiliates is an officer, director, founder, or employee of World Liberty Financial or its affiliates.
Gena🐊
5 months ago
Done 100 simulations with AI, 2 times without debate, 10 times they shake hands, 87 times they don't shake hands and 1 they shake hands and instantly melt into one person. Do what you want with this info
Bobigazda
3 months ago
I'm working on it... Have patience
🤺JustPunched
3 months ago
I gave ChatGPT two pieces of information -- the title and rules of the market, and the WSJ article. I did not give it any further prompts to tilt it in any direction. This is how it assessed the market (which I agree with): "Based on the rules you've provided for the prediction market, this market should resolve to "No." The article states that Israeli special forces have conducted small, targeted raids into southern Lebanon, but these operations do not meet the criteria outlined in your market's rules. Specifically, the rules indicate that only "ground operations involving troops on Lebanese soil for combat operations" will count, and aerial and maritime operations are excluded. Since the article does not confirm that these operations qualify as a broader ground incursion or involve troops in combat operations, and considering the market's resolution criteria relies on official confirmations from Hezbollah and Israel, there hasn't been a definitive entry of Israeli forces for combat operations as specified. Therefore, the conclusion would be "No.""
fraud
2 months ago
A resolution of ‘Yes’ requires one or both of the following: official acknowledgment by the Israeli government or a consensus of credible reporting. The key word here is ‘consensus.’ As of now, no credible media sources, including Reuters, BBC, AP, or others, have explicitly confirmed that Israeli military action took place on Iraqi soil during the specified period. In fact, Iraqi officials have denied any strikes occurred on their territory, and reports remain ambiguous at best. Without a clear consensus confirming action on Iraqi soil, a ‘Yes’ resolution would contradict the stated requirements for credible confirmation. If a “yes” is reached, sources will need to be provided to compare to Poly’s terms and which combination of credible sources they base decisions on
fromthefuture
2 months ago
damn, how many different ways can you get people to bet on the exact same thing? next market will be - who will take a shit in the bathroom closest to the oval office on Jan 21st?
🤺JustPunched
5 months ago
Imho this was a clear No and UMA likely would've voted it No if it was disputed, and the clarification is ridiculous
Rueben
4 months ago
Are you not entertained?
fraud
2 months ago
Fox news edited their article removing IRAQ and joined CNN, BBC, and Arab news reporting only on Syria and Iran. As they deliberately did not mention Iraq, they are all not part of the general agreement claimed. NO GOVERNMENT made any official claims or statements either = RESOLVE TO NO
fraud
2 months ago
WIKIPEDIA = NO | Government officials = NO | Majority of news = NO | IRAQ themselves = NO | BUT polymarket and corrupt UMA say yes? gtfo
ANDONISBRAH
2 months ago
MATE U HAVE 8 DOLLARS ON THE LINE THATS ABOUT A HAPPY MEAL MATE
fullretard
2 months ago
If Trump is assassinated or dies by January 20th and JD is inaugurated then the "other" option would win, right?
gopfan
6 months ago
I heard you have to bet to get some money
1414231
6 months ago
The Trump speech on 27th should easily make BTC go way past $70k even around $75k possibly, thanks for the free money!
SELL-YES-BUY-NO
5 months ago
⬇️ "i have no clue whats going on" button
1337tosha
2 months ago
if he fucking dies i will revive him
Apsalar
3 months ago
The Lebanese people are singing in the streets now that it has been confirmed that they weren't invaded last month.
n/a
2 months ago
If anyone can help to spread this message, we would really appreciate that!
Pedro999
3 months ago
Why people stopped reading the rules at "Donald Trump was involved" avoiding the whole sentence "Donald Trump was involved in the deployment of a new token" ? He didnt deploy anything. He was just used for marketing. It makes no sense to resolve this to YES.
Naturalnoob
3 months ago
© 2024 WorldLibertyFinancial, Inc. All Rights Reserved. *None of Donald J. Trump, any of his family members or any director, officer or employee of the Trump Organization, DT Marks DEFI LLC or any of their respective affiliates is an officer, director, founder, or employee of World Liberty Financial or its affiliates. None of World Liberty Financial, Inc., its affiliates or the World Liberty Financial platform is owned, managed, or operated, by Donald J. Trump, any of his family members, the Trump Organization, DT Marks DEFI LLC or any of their respective directors, officers, employees, affiliates, or principals. $WLFI tokens and use of the World Liberty Financial platform are offered and sold solely by World Liberty Financial or its affiliates.
anon1565
5 months ago
I was a yes holder before the speech with 55,000 shares. However, as the speech concluded, I was 100% certain given the present rules that he had not dropped out While I had been a Yes voter previously, the quote: "I want everyone to know that I am not terminating my campaign. I am simply suspending it and - NOT ENDING IT. My name will remain on the ballot in most states... I encourage you to vote for me! And if enough of you vote for me and neither of the major party candidates wins 270 votes, which is quite possible... I could conceivably still end up in the White House in a contingential election." made it iron tight for me that he was not dropping out. I asked chatgpt and a lawyer friend to confirm what I had heard, and they agreed. I read and re-read the rules over and over again to confirm I was correct. Given I had the information I needed, and after the speech ended, I bought 175,000 No shares. The market agreed with me, trading all the way down to .29c for yes. After I bought these shares, Polymarket posts additional context where they decide the entire speech is invalid, especially the full paragraph I quoted, and instead conjoin 2 inconclusive small quotes. I am positive an unbiased judge, lawyer, llm, uma, or anyone else would rule in Nos favor.
BigMike11
3 months ago
Imagine we get good evidence tomorrow that Trump said "mog" six weeks ago. A video surfaces that no one saw during the last P4 decision. Nobody would argue we ignore that evidence simply because it came out before the last P4 decision. The only difference here is some old time users bought No shares in this case before doing any research.
slentthndr
1 month ago
Well, this was an important lesson we all learned. Just because it's Web3 and has a 'decentralized' resolution layer doesn't mean it can't be blatantly, shamelessly controlled and manipulated by the people who control it
top453
2 months ago
I think the official Iraqi statement is more credible than the NY report
fraud
2 months ago
General consensus = majority agree. ummm BBC, Al Jazeera and other major outlets did not report on IRAQ and no government official confirmed military attack. Market = NO
dxyze
5 months ago
You know PnL is public right?
HamasDidNothingWrong
5 months ago
is this where 🤡 DUMFAG DECRAPP 🤡 LOSES $1000 every day, or is that merely the Trump Mention markets where the SACK of SHIT DECRAP, loses oodles of dollars every day? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Car
7 months ago
What about Polymarket Airdrop
JeffreyBezos
5 months ago
hello I am the Owner of NASA back again after my last update. I just wanted to let you all know I checked the records again and it is still going to be settle at NO. you are all welcome
BigMike11
3 months ago
I see the argument for No know: "all arguments for yes should be thrown out on a technicality". I don't think Uma is going to be hoodwinked that easily. You have no substantive arguments for No. We yes bros have endless high-quality sources suggesting the invasion began in September.
ANudeEgg
3 months ago
Can you Google it and let us know?
efren1983
3 months ago
what times is this event
fraud
2 months ago
The Official IRAQI statement is MORE CREDIBLE than a NY News Report lol. IRAQ Officials say NO ATTACK on their SOIL. NO NO NO
tox1k
2 months ago
Its a win win situation, either I earn money or I earn peace
genghisbrain
2 months ago
can we get a market on if she'll abort it though
h.x7
1 month ago
I will infect myself and become a super spreader to resolve this market
arasid99
3 months ago
The additional context contradicts with the question ''Donald Trump was involved in the deployment of a new token''. The additional context says that he was explicitly involved with World Liberty Financial but then mentions that he only directly PROMOTED the token, thus he wasn't involved in the launch or deployment of this token.
windsTruth
1 month ago
lesson learned - bet on what the creator wants vs the actual outcome
🤺JustPunched
3 months ago
Have I lost my lost my mind? What is the evidence they invaded? IDF says no invasion, AP says they didn't see any troops cross the border, and Hezbollah says they didn't invade.
HaterzLoserz
3 months ago
Let me rejoin the fight by bringing it back to 50/50 parity and acquiring a nice 10k shares to participate in this glorious reconquest
Donkov
3 months ago
Tie me to a missile and fire it at UMA. I am ready