Israel strike on Iranian nuclear facility in 2024? | Polymarket Tracker

This market is closed and no longer accepting bets.

Israel strike on Iranian nuclear facility in 2024?

Last updated 5 months ago

1191

Comments

1

Market

0

Comments per hour

Summary

Discussions regarding the potential Israeli strike on an Iranian nuclear facility in 2024 revolved around the ambiguity of the event's occurrence, with some participants arguing the attack has not been confirmed as targeting nuclear technology. Debates highlighted the lack of concrete evidence, with references to sources like Axios and the absence of official confirmations from Iran or Israel. Participants expressed concerns over the voting mechanism's reliability in determining the market outcome, emphasizing the potential influence of those with vested interests. The predictability of market resolution also sparked discourse on arbitrage opportunities.

Several commenters questioned the legitimacy of news about the attack, pointing to the lack of confirmation from legitimate authorities and relying on limited sources like Axios.
There is significant skepticism about the voting system's objectivity and possible manipulation by stakeholders with high investments, raising concerns about fairness in market outcomes.

Comments

Consensus of credible reporting: A news report from just one news outlet does not constitute a "consensus of credible reporting." A "consensus of credible reporting" typically refers to a situation where multiple reputable news outlets independently report the same or very similar facts, analysis, or interpretations of an event, based on thorough investigation and verification. This helps ensure that the information is reliable, balanced, and not influenced by a single outlet's biases or agenda. A single news outlet might be credible, but relying on only one source does not provide the broader verification and cross-checking that is usually needed to form a well-rounded understanding of a situation. To assess the reliability of a story, it's important to consult multiple sources from different organizations or perspectives, especially when the news is significant or contentious. -ChatGPT 2024

Reuters says it is "defunct", Axios says it is "active". Obviously it is not consensus.

Confirmed by "WetCat"

confirmed israel will attack nuclear, prob after elections

YES holders have forgotten that the purpose of Polymarket is to find truth, not give you the opportunity to scalp a 10% risk free return. Here is what we know: Israel blew up some buildings in Iran during their 10/28 attack. Immediately after the attack, no one on either side claimed that a nuclear site was hit. YES holders are alleging that a nuclear site was hit based on two sources: (1) an Axios article citing unnamed Israeli and American sources, who are obviously incentivized to claim victory against their archenemy Iran. All other news articles point to the Axios article as their source. There are plenty of reasons to doubt this singular datapoint (see Nordstream 2 fiasco where US and Ukraine blamed Russia). The second datapoint for their claim is a report from a nuclear research firm called Axios. This article is from 2018 and cites sources from 2004. All this shows is that there may have been a nuclear site there, 20 years ago. Even people in the ISIS institution expressed skepticism that Iran still had nuclear sites there. What is way more likely is that Israel blew up an unrelated facility for missiles and are trying to appease their domestic audience by claiming a great achievement.

start selling your YES

BBC and The White House says NO "The White House described the strikes as an "exercise of self-defence". A senior administration official said the US had worked with Israel to encourage a "targeted and proportional" response. They also said the attacks did not damage Iranian oil infrastructure or nuclear facilities - targets President Joe Biden had urged Israel not to hit." https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgr0yvrx4qpo

New holder here hoping for a 10x because: 1. No official gov report, no consensus of credible reporting. 2. No prove it is nuclear site, but used to be.

There is neither an official statement from the Israeli and Iranian governments, nor a consensus of credible reporting. In fact, almost all news sources did not report anything, which is for sure not what consensus means. It means all sources report the same, not a few sources report something.

On top of all the problems other raised (unreliable report, no consensus, activity was over 20 years ago), there is an important misunderstanding on what "nuclear technology" means. The work that was alleged to have happened in Parchin up to 2003 is regarding nuclear detonators. Despite the name, nuclear detonators are NOT nuclear technology. They direct energy from a conventional explosion to generate enough pressure for a nuclear reaction. So the work itself does not involve fissile material, nuclear energy, nuclear reactions or anything of that sort. The fissile material is brought in only when a nuclear bomb is actually tested, which Iran has never done. The IAEA has additionally examined the site and found no evidence of fissile material. Of course, some claimed this was due to sanitization efforts. However, it is extremely difficult to remove all trace radiation from a site that handled fissile material. Bottom line: not only is Parchin no longer relevant, it was NEVER involved in "development, enrichment, storage, or processing of nuclear material or technology".

I love the smell of free money in the morning