#18
Rank
70
Comments
56
Likes Received
0
Likes Given
fraud
1 week ago
J POST - Explosions were reported in Basra, in southern Iraq, but soon after, Iraqi officials denied this, saying that they had actually occurred across the border in Iran
fraud
1 week ago
Also WTF it's not even October 31st yet? the decision should been on hold until then as we may have more clarification regarding this
fraud
1 week ago
censorship against the truth
0xF04FaeB6B086cdaA7Cea354d093Fb8315296A8c4-1729660831863
1 week ago
Why are messages being blocked
fraud
1 week ago
Go to Uma.xyz
fraud
1 week ago
UPDATE: NO might WIN: there has been a surge in 'no' voters on UMA
fraud
1 week ago
UPDATE: NO might WIN: there has been a surge in 'no' voters on UMA
fraud
1 week ago
IRAQ DENIED ATTACK
fraud
1 week ago
Apparently a newsreporter writing an article in a starbucks in NYC is a more reliable source than IRAQ themselves. clown website fr
fraud
1 week ago
Apparently a newsreporter writing an article in a starbucks in NYC is a more reliable source than IRAQ themselves. clown website fr
fraud
1 week ago
IRAQ themselves DENIED any attacks on them, MOST credible source is IRAQ themselves if they are denying then who tf is NY POST
fraud
1 week ago
Unbelievable - Polymarket AI summary stated: No strike on IRAQ as of October 24 now the AI summary says Iraq was hit? clear rigging
fraud
1 week ago
its cowardly to quit
Scaggypoos
1 week ago
I'm gonna be honest guys, there's no incentive to hold No anymore, it's obvious this market is rigged. I'll probably be selling shortly
fraud
1 week 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.
fraud
1 week ago
delete your comment and hold pussy, ur crying over peanuts, hold your ground
Scaggypoos
1 week ago
I'm gonna be honest guys, there's no incentive to hold No anymore, it's obvious this market is rigged. I'll probably be selling shortly
fraud
1 week ago
coward, for the principle hold
Scaggypoos
1 week ago
I'm gonna be honest guys, there's no incentive to hold No anymore, it's obvious this market is rigged. I'll probably be selling shortly
fraud
1 week ago
WIKIPEDIA = NO | Government officials = NO | Majority of news = NO | IRAQ themselves = NO | BUT polymarket and corrupt UMA say yes? gtfo
fraud
1 week ago
The truth is that no military action took place on IRAQ (no government confirmation or acknowledgement and no media general consensus instead lots of doubt) but corrupt UMA voters will vote 'yes' for their own monetary gain. This gives UMA and Polymarket a VERY VERY bad look I doubt I will interact with either platform again
fraud
1 week 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
fraud
1 week ago
UMA is a terrible way for this outcome lol, polymarket should step in
n/a
1 week ago
Moderators in UMA discord seem pretty certain this will resolve as “YES” tonight. If you disagree, join the discord and make some noise.
fraud
1 week ago
make it known in the discord, theres hella npcs that are voting for yes in their discord
GayPeopleAreRetarded
1 week ago
Will be hard for UMA to argue against wikipedia. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_2024_Israeli_strikes_on_Iran It's over for YES holders.
fraud
1 week ago
WIKIPEDIA = NO MILITARY ACTION ON IRAQ | NO government confirmation = MARKET NO
fraud
1 week ago
u have to join the discord.gg/uma and let them know
Bektash
1 week ago
It is interesting that everbody knows this is not true but they all sayong it's gonna resolve to yes. If it's not true, they should vote p4 or Polymarket will lose its credibility for many of us!
fraud
1 week ago
the only way to fight against the corruption
AhmedBensa
1 week ago
let's all go to discord
fraud
1 week ago
discord.gg/uma to make your voice heard bro, these can determine the outcome :o
Hamapo
1 week ago
I clearly think that the creator has confused “Iran” with “Iraq”.
fraud
1 week ago
discord.gg/uma to make your voice heard bro, these can determine the outcome :)
BigDaddyMoneyMaker
1 week ago
israeli + iraqi gov both said Israel didn't attack there, and..... Fox removed from a article... clearly there is no evidence.
fraud
1 week ago
discord.gg/uma to make your voice heard bro, these can determine the outcome
Ardit12
1 week ago
i think we can say that we all know this is not true but the answer is gonna be yes either way, israel never attaked iraq but this is still gonna be a yes so if you dont want to lose all your money just sell lol
fraud
1 week ago
I STRONGLY suggest all 'NO' voters go to discord.gg/uma and make your voice heard (currently: UMA Verifiers could not find evidence to resolve this market when it was proposed and thus dispute alerts were raised)
fraud
1 week ago
clear consensus? could you provide 5 articles from 5 different news outlets agreeing with 'yes'
Ardit12
1 week ago
i feel like polymarket is talking about iran no way they actually think this is for iraq
fraud
1 week ago
more rigged than the 2020 US elections
Alimu.
1 week ago
This is riged
fraud
1 week ago
i think polymarket must be confusing IRAN and IRAQ because there is NO WAY - No major new outlets are confirm this? check BBC and AL jazeera , NO government official (IRAQ or ISRAEL) is confirming this
SirBra
1 week ago
Many credible news outlets (BBC, CNN, etc.) have come out with articles about “what we know” about the Israel strikes and have listed out what has been attacked based on government intel and satellite imagery. NONE have said Iraq was attacked. The only articles come from the early reports of explosion sounds in Iraq that were later clarified to be in the Iran regions across the border. Polymarket should immediately take down their statement.
fraud
1 week ago
LOL i think polymarket must be confusing IRAN and IRAQ because there is NO WAY - No major new outlets are confirm this? check BBC and AL jazeera , NO government official (IRAQ or ISRAEL) is confirming this. so why is polymarket on yes lol?
fraud
1 week ago
link 5 articles that would suggest a general consensus. 1 NY post does not equate to general consensus lol. Did BBC or Al jazeera report this?
🥥💊DecoupleUMA
1 week ago
there appear to be a lot of newbie bozos or people that don't speak english as a first language. please consider reading this very slowly: `A clear consensus of credible media indicates that Israel struck targets within Iraq during its recent retaliation. As such, this market should resolve to "Yes".`
fraud
1 week ago
link 5 articles supporting your claim that would equate to a general consensus
HammerVelocity
1 week ago
Explosions in Iraq Explosions were reported in Basra, in southern Iraq, but soon after, Iraqi officials denied this, saying that they had actually occurred across the border in Iran.
fraud
1 week ago
Where is the general consensus? can you find confirmation of military action on IRAQ in 5 major news articles? NO , can you find Israel or Iraq officials confirming military action? NO so why is the market still on yes? UMA staff do the right thing and resolve NO if you're seeing this
fraud
1 week ago
how has it been clarified. Where is the general consensus? can you link 5 major news outlets confirm the military action?
scottilicious
1 week ago
There have to be some market makers making lots of $ on all this strange activity buyoed by newbie bozos thinking they're gonna strike it rich on something that has already been clarified. Strange.
fraud
1 week ago
sad for a few % in profit you are willing to support fake news. Deep down in your heart you know yes is the wrong outcome. Polymarket revealed how biased the website is
Reaper01
1 week ago
you are fucking noobs, voting already ended, reveal phase will start in 8 hours. You can tell anything you want and cry scam, but this market is already resolved to YES, though not revealed yet. You'll all fucking loose your lunch money regardless your x100 dreams
fraud
1 week ago
'were also reported Friday by Israeli news outlets' since when is this confirmation LOOL
Reaper01
1 week ago
https://www.foxnews.com/world/us-made-aware-israels-strike-iran-days-advance-idf-says-mission-complete
fraud
1 week ago
IDF did not mention these locations in their release (NOT CLEAR consensus)
Reaper01
1 week ago
https://www.foxnews.com/world/us-made-aware-israels-strike-iran-days-advance-idf-says-mission-complete
fraud
1 week ago
Can polymarket provide news article support 'yes'? I searched so many major outlets (BBC/AP/Al Jazeera) and government official statements. They do NOT mention anything about Iraq military action having occured and there is no official statement confirming. This website will unfortuantely lose credibility especially if someone makes a youtube video exposing this suspicious behaviour or makes a viral post. Please investigate as the general consensus is currently NO to military action
fraud
1 week ago
for a few % and supporting fake news you're willing to do all of this? yikes smh
🥥💊DecoupleUMA
1 week ago
if yes gets above 98c again i'll be comfortable with my position. that retraction thing was scary
fraud
1 week ago
for a few % and supporting fake news you're willing to do all of this? yikes
Yeatsy
1 week ago
This is an oppurtunity for generational wealth don’t fumble
fraud
1 week ago
exactly, this prediction will determine the authenticity of this website. The clear answer is NO
Yeatsy
1 week ago
No matter what I’m holding onto my NO shares. I either lose and know this website is a scam- or win and know this website is a scam given this false consensus so far
fraud
1 week ago
there is no general consensus and no government confirmation
denizz
1 week ago
This market will resolve to Yes per the polymarket clarification. This Fox News edit is not significant. Polymarket will not change the clarification based on this. Be warned.
fraud
1 week ago
clearly insiders or market manipulation. The fact there is no general consensus regarding the attack or any official government confirmation suggests military action did not take place against Iraq, even Iraq did not claim it happend. Why can 1 journalists that have been wrong multiple times determine the whole market? seems sus af
HXM
1 week 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
1 week ago
they realized their mistake bucko
Car
1 week ago
why did Foxnews remove Iraq?
fraud
1 week ago
NO military action against IRAQ - no official confirmation, no general consensus = MARKET NO
skystar001
1 week ago
What happened
fraud
1 week ago
where?
Yeatsy
1 week ago
EVERY NO holder join this discord and go to the evidence/rationale and preach our case
fraud
1 week 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
fraud
1 week 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
Reaper01
1 week ago
Dude chill😄. Polymarket is being resolved by news, not truth. Most credible agencies are NYT and WSJ, so the decision will be made based on their articles. If you don't agree, then leave this platform
fraud
1 week 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! 😂😂😂😂😂
fraud
1 week 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
1 week ago
just proves the flaw with polymarket - totally unfair despite their being a clear answer indiciating no military action against iraq, no governmental claims nothing
schimaere
1 week ago
can someone explain to me how this additional context works? are there any rules to this? is this already a decision? what does "should" resolve mean exactly? why is it still open when this already indicates a incoming decision?
fraud
1 week ago
Fox News EDITED their article and REMOVED IRAQ ATTACK and KEPT SYRIA/IRAN attack. General Consensus = NO MILITARY ACTION ON IRAQ
fraud
1 week ago
Fox News is maybe the best example to our case. The following article is mentioned in UMA posts as an example for a report of an attack on Iraq. Currently it only mentions an attack on Syria and Iran. That means they deliberately removed the report of attack of Iraq - and therefore, they are not a part of a general agreement (consensus) it happened. Obviously, they won’t correct themselves by posting another article correcting a sentence in the first version, but the edit they performed is enough to understand they are not a part of the agreement. btw, it also proves big media outlets might still correct themselves so we should WAIT UNTIL OCT. 31. https://www.foxnews.com/world/israel-begins-retaliatory-strikes-against-iran-following-missile-barrage-targeting-israelis
fraud
1 week ago
you have a better chance going to the UMA discord and asking staff to seriously consider this bet
nennou
1 week ago
Guys Pls Email The NYTimes Editor responsible of this (Emails: farnaz.fassihi@nytimes.com, michael.levenson@nytimes.com, isabelk@nytimes.com, hiba.yazbek@nytimes.com): Hello ALL, I believe that Truth matters for a great journalist like you! I'm very interested to understand why NYtimes reported that Israel striked Iraq, while all evidence said otherwise. PLz help correct this, people are losing their money on Polymarket based on this.
fraud
1 week ago
NY Times has been incorrect multiple times in the past: examples where The New York Times faced criticism for inaccuracies:Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction (2002-2003): The NYT published several articles before the Iraq War claiming that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. These claims were later proven to be inaccurate, leading to widespread criticism of the paper's reporting and reliance on questionable sources. Other major news articles such as BBC have not reported on Israel military action on IRAQ and no government official has claimed this. Market should resolve to: NO
fraud
1 week ago
Can somebody complain to POLYMARKET , how can 1 article (IT IS COMMON for articles to have mistakes) determine this market. OFFICAL GOVERNMENTS DID NOT CONFIRM anything. RESOLVE : NO thanks
fraud
1 week ago
then why was the outcome 'YES' multiple times? no government official confirmed any military action
Donkov
1 week ago
A lot of new profiles are buying NO without knowing how the disputes work. UMA will NEVER vote against poly clarifications. They pulled a fast one on few markets (that had no clarifications), so, if they try to scam this one their token is going to 0, because poly will ditch their nerd asses.
fraud
1 week ago
if market resolves to YES , there is clearly CORRUPTION and this site is biased af
Yeatsy
1 week ago
have faith gentlemen and gentleladies
fraud
1 week 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
fraud
1 week ago
'there is no information indicating a direct Israeli military strike on Iraq. The United States and Israel continue to collaborate on regional security in response to Iran-related threats'. SOURCE: The Long War Journal, The White House, Times of Israel.
fraud
1 week 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
fraud
1 week ago
THIS IS SUSPICOUS AF - UMA IS NOT RELIABLE TO RESOLVE ANYTHING CORRUPT AF
fraud
1 week ago
NO GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL FROM EITHER COUNTRY HAS CONFIRMED THE MILITARY ACTION. A LOT OF MEDIA SAYS ONLY IRAQ AIRSPACE WAS USED TO GO TO IRAN. 0 MILITARY ACTION AGAINST IRAQ
fraud
1 week ago
'A clear consensus of credible media' bro the MEDIA LIE. DID ISRAEL CONFIRM IT? THEY CONFIRMED IT WITH IRAN NOT IRAQ, DID IRAQ CONFIRM IT? NOOOOO
fraud
1 week ago
'there has been no confirmed military action by Israel specifically against Iraqi soil, airspace, or maritime territory. The strikes were part of a retaliatory response to earlier Iranian ballistic missile attacks'
fraud
1 week ago
LMFAO THE AI SUMMARY: As of October 28, 2024, there is no reported Israeli military action against Iraq. Recent tensions have been focused on Israel's conflicts with Hezbollah in Lebanon and Iran. Israel conducted airstrikes on Iranian military targets on October 26, in response to earlier Iranian ballistic missile attacks, but these strikes did not involve Iraqi territory. PLEASE KEEP THIS WEBSITE FAIR - CLEARLY THERE WAS NO MILITARY ACTION AGAINST IRAQ
fraud
2 weeks ago
according to wikipedia: Since 1980, Indians and all other South Asians have been classified as part of the Asian ethnic group. So even if we lose we can dispute and maybe they can account for indians too lol
Fred19999
2 weeks ago
Does this include Indians?
fraud
2 weeks ago
YES - people are fed up with economy going down the toilet whilst billions go abroad in proxy wars. Asians are very hardworking and only Trump can revive this economy and ease tension internationally. Asians want what’s better for the economy!
fraud
2 weeks ago
I’ll take the free $$$
fraud
2 weeks ago
LMFAOOO trump is VERY undervalued.
fraud
2 weeks ago
LMFAOOO trump is VERY undervalued.
fraud
3 weeks ago
'no' is significantly undervalued lol. 2016: 29% latino voters / 2020: 32% / 2024: ? | Trump has only gained in popularity since then