#19
Rank
220
Comments
165
Likes Received
342
Likes Given
EmpirePending
1 month ago
CNN has not mentioned that it is live. Just that it “will air at 9pm ET on Thursday”
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Knowing Kamala and CNN this could very well have been recorded last week to allow them to edit out any bad footage to make her look as good as possible.
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Knowing Kamala and CNN this could very well have been recorded last week to allow them to edit out any bad footage to make her look as good as possible.
EmpirePending
1 month ago
CNN announced Kamala interview for release on Thursday (two days time). Market specifies the interview must be between August 26 and September 9. If this is a pre-recorded interview from earlier this week this doesn’t resolve yes.
EmpirePending
1 month ago
CNN announced Kamala interview for release on Thursday (two days time). Market specifies the interview must be between August 26 and September 9. If this is a pre-recorded interview from earlier this week this doesn’t resolve yes.
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Insider buying for this market is insanely riskier than for the bieber baby market which is what I assume you’re talking about. Only people that know what will happen (if anyone) is those very high up in the French police and maybe a handful of lawyers. Neither of those fit the bill if somebody who would be betting 20k on Polymarket.
n/a
1 month ago
Sold my No shares for now again -maybe a bit paranoid, but as I was screwed once by insider knowledge here, don't know. Top Yes holder only signed up for this market on poly and keeps buying yes. Either just a Telegram/Pavlov fanboy who is optimistic or buying Yes with knowledge (but for that 20k is not much oo). Sus or not sus? On the other hand on the market will Biden resign a whale came in the day of the press conference blew 500k, buying the entire market empty and lost it all. Sometimes hard to tell if Fish or Insider :D
EmpirePending
1 month ago
FBI if you see this I’m just joking
EmpirePending
1 month ago
I love assassination markets
EmpirePending
1 month ago
I love assassination markets
EmpirePending
1 month ago
They want him on terrorism charges bruh that’s not white collar
n/a
1 month ago
Hes a billionaire, he will bond out after they charge him
EmpirePending
1 month ago
They should release him but they won’t that’s why I bet no. In a fair world and a fair system I would be betting yes
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Baal I’m on your side I had 14k no in that market but please keep it to that markets comments stop spamming every single market about it
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Says page not found
ArtVandalay
1 month ago
https://www.tribunal-de-paris.justice.fr/sites/default/files/2024-08/2024-08-26%20-%20CP%20TELEGRAM%20.pdf Here are all the charges. The investigate was opened on the 8th of July.
EmpirePending
1 month ago
They want him on terrorism chargers there’s no way they let him out in 3 days. They won’t get him on bail because he will be a flight risk.
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Sucks that this lost out but it’s a lesson learned. Never bet assuming a fair market, always side with what Polymarket and UMA will vote despite if it’s wrong. We’re all in this for the same reason, the only difference is yes holders have figured the lesson out already. (I held 14k no shares)
EmpirePending
1 month ago
The vote is over it’s already P2
0x7b23a5j3j1
1 month ago
.1 is to cheap! If there’s a 1% chance D4 resolves in “No”/“to early” as it should. (No)should be 10x
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Ya some guy market bought $1.8k worth. It’s a brand new account and his first trade so he probably didn’t know
Arbiter-of-Truth
1 month ago
I'm confused why somebody market bought so much... i thought he had been released or something lmao
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Feels good to be on car’s side this time
Car
1 month ago
keep them market YES buys coming guys
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Schizophrenia
41-17™askDomerWhatImean
1 month ago
🌊🌊🌊carSCAMLOSELOSE 😭😭😭
EmpirePending
1 month ago
I’m still waiting
Justifax
1 month ago
The real scammers in this market were the pumpers and dumpers, the ones who bought under 1c, pumped it up to 5c, and sold. They are by far the worst. The secondary scammers are the traders who buy and sell and feed off the scam, sucking up rewards as well. They want these scam markets. It's trading profit. The final scammer is Polymarket who thinks this volume is a good thing and doesn't shut it the ffffck down.
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Baal and blue both hate Chinese people at least the yes and no side can agree on something
baal
1 month ago
Cant really do shit about anyone in china realistically but everywhere else baal has reach
EmpirePending
1 month ago
The guy that’s currently holding 56k shares and 8th largest holder has dumped?? Why has his position not updated wtf? It’s still showing he owns 56k shares?? It’s crazy how you can dump your position but still own 56k that’s so strange right?
Justifax
1 month ago
Look at aenews profit in this market. You got scammed big time by him. He is by far the worst of everyone in this market. He bought low, went in UMA and pumped it up, and then dumped on you. Polymarket facilitates his scamming with these vague rules. This is not what prediction markets are for. This shit has got to stop.
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Name one person who bought below 1c and sold above 5c
Justifax
1 month ago
The real scammers in this market were the pumpers and dumpers, the ones who bought under 1c, pumped it up to 5c, and sold. They are by far the worst. The secondary scammers are the traders who buy and sell and feed off the scam, sucking up rewards as well. They want these scam markets. It's trading profit. The final scammer is Polymarket who thinks this volume is a good thing and doesn't shut it the ffffck down.
EmpirePending
1 month ago
No will not win. It’s either a yes or the market keeps going until August 31. But realistically if it’s voted p4 (keep going until August 31st) it’s basically a no and no price will go to 90-95
politicschange
1 month ago
if NO wins, does it resolve NO, or does it just go back to normal?
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Again, send Reuters article please!
coconutPilled
1 month ago
thx scammers. believe polymarket and reuters
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Lies both markets have been equal since both disputes started, both move up and down together
BlueSky123
1 month ago
RFK: You should vote for Trump. Notards: Not an endorsement!
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Send Reuters article please!
coconutPilled
1 month ago
thx scammers. believe polymarket and reuters
EmpirePending
1 month ago
If you truly believe your own comment you would buy yes for the easiest 4% of your life.
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Buy yes then? You sold your yes bets yersterday? What are you scared of if you’re so confident?
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Buy yes then? You sold your yes bets yersterday? What are you scared of if you’re so confident?
BlueSky123
1 month ago
RFK: You should vote for Trump. Notards: Not an endorsement!
EmpirePending
1 month ago
This has to be a troll. Headlines don’t count it’s been posted about a thousand times already
Justifax
1 month ago
The rules are just guidelines and not meant to be literal. They can't be. They never defined 'formal' or 'endorsement'. So what are we left with? Just go with the headlines and call it a day. Poly staff are not reporters. They have no clue what qualifies as endorsement or doesn't. Let the experts at wsj/reuters/ap do their job.
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Headlines don’t count as resolution sources read the rules
Justifax
1 month ago
you can't binarize truth, it's too complex. you can however binarize / create prediction markets for headlines. Did he endorse? Yes / No. The headlines said yes.
EmpirePending
1 month ago
I say it is a no assuming there is no formal endorsement within the next week
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Polymarket didn’t foresee this happening. Nobody did. But as per the pre-determined rules it is a no. Polymarket wrongly added false context. Yes voters should be refunded their stake.
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Polymarket didn’t foresee this happening. Nobody did. But as per the pre-determined rules it is a no. Polymarket wrongly added false context. Yes voters should be refunded their stake.
EmpirePending
1 month ago
The fact you can actually bet after the “added context” says yes means the added context is false. If the added context was the true outcome they should have stopped all betting as soon as it was posted
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Yes voters are assuming that any hint of support is an RFK endorsement and him telling everybody to vote Trump. That is clearly not the case. Polymarket failed to foresee this outcome and that’s their fault. It is a no. Unless of course he formally endorses within the next week.
EmpirePending
1 month ago
RFK clearly told voters he still wants them to vote for him in the 40 states where he is on the ballot. Trump is also on these 40 states’ ballots. So from this RFK is saying in 40 states he wants people to vote for him over Trump. How in the name of god is this a trump endorsement??
EmpirePending
1 month ago
RFK clearly told voters he still wants them to vote for him in the 40 states where he is on the ballot. Trump is also on these 40 states’ ballots. So from this RFK is saying in 40 states he wants people to vote for him over Trump. How in the name of god is this a trump endorsement??
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Is that a real quote? If so can you link it please
5to5000
1 month ago
RFK: No. There's been no commitments. ... We just made a general commitment we will work together.
EmpirePending
1 month ago
What happened
432
1 month ago
Some big positive vibe came from a UMA voting whale ;).
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Same if this was an official court I would put my life savings on it
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Nobody is salty most of us are in profits because we bought lower. We realise how good value the bet is at 4% when the odds are like 90%. Only reason it’s at 4% is distrust of UMA decision making
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Nobody is salty most of us are in profits because we bought lower. We realise how good value the bet is at 4% when the odds are like 90%. Only reason it’s at 4% is distrust of UMA decision making
DeboBets
1 month ago
“No” gang is just salty they will lose money.
EmpirePending
1 month ago
All sources from Kennedy’s team say no endorsement. Yes voters only have the false added context as evidence. Polymarket employees are not gods they are capable of making mistakes they are human.
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Not saying it’s the right thing to do but if you were a UMA whale that is planning on insider trading, wouldn’t it make more sense to vote P4 and buy up no because the reward is so much higher. And there is substantial evidence to back up a P4 vote.
EmpirePending
1 month ago
True I guess there are some markets where you can buy 90% when true odds are like 99%. This markets definitley isn’t one of those
PeterNh
1 month ago
People overestimate rare events. So if you can bet .90 on something like the VP not switching, you are going to be right more than 90% of the time. A vp candidate dropping out at this point is probably a less than 1% chance. For this market with the facts backing up a "no", I do not get buying at .95 at all.
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Trying to have a civil convo about risk to reward.
coconutPilled
1 month ago
can't believe ppl buy HYSA and it returns less than 100000%? I can buy lotto ticket and it returns 1000000000000X? smartest no holder
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Curious what yes buyers have to say about it. This isn’t a debate specific to this market.
EmpirePending
1 month ago
I don’t understand people that buy yes on all markets at like 95-99 for a couple few percent gain. I understand most of these markets are very likely to go in your favour so you built up 1% here 3% there and it snowballs. But one bad result and you lose everything you’ve been working towards. Losing a 95% market will happen eventually so to me it’s not worth the risk of losing everything?
EmpirePending
1 month ago
I don’t understand people that buy yes on all markets at like 95-99 for a couple few percent gain. I understand most of these markets are very likely to go in your favour so you built up 1% here 3% there and it snowballs. But one bad result and you lose everything you’ve been working towards. Losing a 95% market will happen eventually so to me it’s not worth the risk of losing everything?
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Also your post on the discord sites a cnn article that is supportive of p4. You say they filed a court document mentioning endorsing Trump which is true but you failed to read the second part of the article which says that the lawyers withdrew that document as it mistakenly mentioned an endorsement and quickly after filed an amendment document removing all reference to an endorsement.
n/a
1 month ago
Yes campaigners - here is a DETAILED account of the SUBSTANTIVE evidence in support of yes - YOU WILL BE VICTORIOUS! I have already made my post on UMA - please cite further examples, as my post length is limited - WE WILL IN! FIGHT! https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Cw7AT70OZIfiJhvp4PJ8QNi8PfJLJC06xy93-Eaor9I/edit?usp=sharing
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Your doc is for the dropout market this is the endorsement market
n/a
1 month ago
Yes campaigners - here is a DETAILED account of the SUBSTANTIVE evidence in support of yes - YOU WILL BE VICTORIOUS! I have already made my post on UMA - please cite further examples, as my post length is limited - WE WILL IN! FIGHT! https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Cw7AT70OZIfiJhvp4PJ8QNi8PfJLJC06xy93-Eaor9I/edit?usp=sharing
EmpirePending
1 month ago
I’ve they voted p4 it wouldn’t be going rogue, it would be correcting a Polymarket error, which is exactly what UMA is there for
n/a
1 month ago
If UMA goes rogue, then Polymarket will just drop them. Because UMA is dead in the water without Poly, they have strong incentives to comply.
EmpirePending
1 month ago
I agree. Which means the low price really shows the distrust of UMA rather than the markets belief of a formal endorsement
EmpirePending
1 month ago
I feel like that’s why no is only at 4c too. If the UMA process was as reliable as a court this would probably be at 50/50
EmpirePending
1 month ago
I feel like that’s why no is only at 4c too. If the UMA process was as reliable as a court this would probably be at 50/50
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Tbh I really do not trust the UMA process
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Tbh I really do not trust the UMA process
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Do they have to provide evidence? I don’t know how it works
LMNOP
1 month ago
I assume they'd have to provide rationale behind their decision. And there is simply no evidence to resolve this to Yes currently.
EmpirePending
1 month ago
UMA will likely vote to agree with Polymarket on both disputes not because they agree with Polymarket, in fact a majority may disagree with Polymarket, but because they want the financial reward of agreeing with Polymarket.
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Added context was a clear mistake. UMA exists to fix any centralized polymarket mistakes.
EmpirePending
1 month ago
UMA voting yes because of polymarket context defeats the whole point of UMA
AugustoPinochet73
1 month ago
The two walles are saying the'll be voting yes, and I think they'll do that because this time Polymarket has made a clarification. Also be carefull because probably first UMA votes will be NO so they can do some inside buying. But really polymarket, you should et ride of UMA, whats the point? Anyways after reading both arguments I'm neutral, just gonna play the "What UMA will decide" game.
EmpirePending
1 month ago
It wouldn’t be in doubt if Polymarket didn’t issue a rushed added context. Without that the market would probably be like 60/40
n/a
1 month ago
I'm surprised that this is even in doubt. It's very clear that there's no formal endorsement, just an informal political support. Also, additional context has no relevance whatsoever, since it was issued AFTER many many people had already betted millions of dollars.
EmpirePending
1 month ago
RFK’s lawyers went out of their way to remove any mention of an endorsement. It’s clear as day this is not a formal endorsement.
EmpirePending
1 month ago
It’s so obviously a no but I can understand why yes holders see it as a guarantee yes because of the polymarket context. It’s an error from PM and they should refund yes buyers
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Hahaha that quote is golden
n/a
1 month ago
Despite actions that could be interpreted as supportive, the evidence indicates that resolving the market now would be premature. The requirement for a "formal endorsement" has not been unambiguously met, and official sources and actions activeley contradict this.This ambiguity was present in the market before additional context was give as seen by the huge volatility in percentages: the market was clearly undecided. To quote Polymarket "The most important thing to us is truth," "People are incredibly conditioned to only believe media that confirms their biases and desired outcomes, Polymarket tells people the true odds regardless of what anyone wants to happen" https://www.forbes.com/sites/digital-assets/2024/07/31/election-uncertainty-in-venezuela-turns-polymarket-into-an-oracle/.
EmpirePending
1 month ago
I agree they need a team of lawyer writing these rules not some discord geek
HsB34sgg
1 month ago
They shouldn't if they are written by unqualified dyslexics who don't understand the laws of the land.
EmpirePending
1 month ago
They shouldn’t count as rules though. What kind of betting platform creates rules after people have already bet millions of dollars? And how rules literally say “this market should resolved to yes”
TimeQuestion
1 month ago
If Polymarket clarifications count as rules, then that is all that matters.
EmpirePending
1 month ago
https://apnews.com/article/trump-harris-vance-walz-election-dnc-93dc79917053d8c97db4bb9cd6b0130d
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Not sure if this was posted but more evidence that it was not an endorsement: “ RFK Jr. says he is suspending, not ending his campaign. His campaign says he ‘has not endorsed Trump’”
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Not sure if this was posted but more evidence that it was not an endorsement: “ RFK Jr. says he is suspending, not ending his campaign. His campaign says he ‘has not endorsed Trump’”
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Bluesky sold right after talking all the shit
EmpirePending
1 month ago
The risk is defo not worth the 4% gain
scattering
1 month ago
gonna sell my yes shares while i can
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Pretty crazy I would’ve assumed as soon as people saw that it would shoot up above 30c at least
n/a
1 month ago
Yes was pretty big when this dropped
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Was gonna delete it but I guess everyone has already seen how slow I am hahahaha
n/a
1 month ago
Yes was pretty big when this dropped
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Lmao
n/a
1 month ago
more embarrassing for the guy who only read the first document in the article and sent the link as if it supported the YES case
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Shit that’s embarrassing I’m late to the party sorry lol I was afk for a while hahahahaha
n/a
1 month ago
We did already post it. Yes votes don't care becasue they don't know what an endorsement is
EmpirePending
1 month ago
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/08/23/politics/read-rfk-jr-pennsylvania-court-filing/index.html
EmpirePending
1 month ago
This is the biggest piece of evidence and nobody here has posted it. A CNN report detailing the exact court filings RFK’s lawyers filed which originally stated it was an endorsement and was later retracted and edited to make it clear it was not a formal endorsement. This is the single biggest piece of evidence and this market must be resolved as no!
EmpirePending
1 month ago
This is the biggest piece of evidence and nobody here has posted it. A CNN report detailing the exact court filings RFK’s lawyers filed which originally stated it was an endorsement and was later retracted and edited to make it clear it was not a formal endorsement. This is the single biggest piece of evidence and this market must be resolved as no!
EmpirePending
1 month ago
So there’s only alpha here if you believe the correlation between swing state results is less than 30%
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Zero’s logic is correct but it fails to account for the correlation between swings states. If you put correlation to 30% the probability of winning all swings states at their current PM probability is exactly 17% which is exactly where the market is right now
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Zero’s logic is correct but it fails to account for the correlation between swings states. If you put correlation to 30% the probability of winning all swings states at their current PM probability is exactly 17% which is exactly where the market is right now
NowItsMyTime
2 months ago
I betted no, if Trump has 50% chances in each state, that would mean less than 1% chance all together.
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Signing could be interpreted as a loan deal? These are Americans running this website they probably don’t even know what a loan deal is
n/a
1 month ago
This market will resolve to “Yes” if it is officially confirmed that Victor Osimhen has signed for Chelsea F.C. during the transfer window. Otherwise, this market will resolve to "No".
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Can we please clarify if a loan deal counts as yes or no?
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Yea you’re right only person I can think of is somebody who knows what the result of the dispute will be…
ThatGuyMaybe
1 month ago
I dont understand what kind of person would risk 130k on this. hooly.
EmpirePending
1 month ago
No is clearly the right answer here. But no matters what happens Polymarket fucked up bad and need to refund whoever is on the losing side.
EmpirePending
1 month ago
I’m not invested but this is the most obvious no ever, daylight robbery if this resolves yes
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Just scratch it off as an employee mistake and refund yes buyers and everyone is happy
nola72324
1 month ago
I understand that the No holders are pumping, but you all do realize that this resolving No after Polymarket says it will be Yes would be an existential disaster for them.
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Yea the media never posts anything without 100% validating the story…
n/a
1 month ago
A screenshot posted on twitter has no validity at all. It contradicts EVERY single media publication. No journalist has verified or even acknowledged what is in that screenshot. Until it is verified by the Journalistic Community and the dozens of articles about his endorsement are redacted that holds no weight. I highly doubt Nicole would claim every single media outlet is publicizing false information and only correct one single person on X
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Refunding yes holders is definitely fair I don’t wish bad on them this is a polymarket error
TheWolfOfPolymarket
1 month ago
Wrongful clarification, it happens. Maybe the Yes holders will be refunded.
EmpirePending
1 month ago
The drop out market resolved as yes… polymarket have a giant mess on their hands
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Rfk also confirming he is not dropping out in an email to supporters: https://x.com/giggitytitties/status/1827397843579011550?s=46&t=7FgnUqPp7Ji6mCENCN9pgg
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Rfk also confirming he is not dropping out in an email to supporters: https://x.com/giggitytitties/status/1827397843579011550?s=46&t=7FgnUqPp7Ji6mCENCN9pgg
EmpirePending
1 month ago
That’s gg congrats to team no https://x.com/giggitytitties/status/1827388701481299983?s=46&t=7FgnUqPp7Ji6mCENCN9pgg
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Her pinned tweet
LMNOP
1 month ago
link?
EmpirePending
1 month ago
It was 50/50 before polymarket added context. Added context is not additional rules and therefore should not determine the outcome of a market. Yet that is what polymarket did. Everyone knows it was a rushed and mistaken added context that’s fine everyone makes mistakes. But the only reason this market went to 99 is because the rushed and mistaken context said it was a yes. If there was no added context this market would still be at 50/50 waiting for Kennedy to come out with an official formal endorsement.
EmpirePending
1 month ago
If this is resolved as yes it opens the door for polymarket to add whatever kind of “context” aka rules they want even after millions of dollars has been bet and the outcome has been determined.
EmpirePending
1 month ago
If this is resolved as yes it opens the door for polymarket to add whatever kind of “context” aka rules they want even after millions of dollars has been bet
EmpirePending
1 month ago
“Added context” is not there to determine the outcome. It is there to clear up any ambiguity in the current rules. Polymarket failed to correctly define the outcome that occurred and therefore it should be no resolution. You cannot add context after the fact to change the outcome.
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Added Context just means describing the rules more clearly but not changing them. This specific “added context” did not actually add any context it just quoted the speech and said this counts as yes. Added context only applies before the outcome is determined, otherwise it is not context.
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Context just means describing the rules more clearly but not changing them. This specific “added context” did not actually add any context it just quoted the speech and said this counts as yes
n/a
1 month ago
If Polymarket had not added their additional context, we’d still be around 50-50. That in itself shows you the endorsement, if any, was not FORMAL (as required by the rules).
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Wouldn’t surprise me if they are
n/a
1 month ago
Pardon my naive question, but do we know for sure that whoever adds those additional contexts is not a stakeholder?
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Exactly and added context is not extra rules therefore context should not affect the outcome
n/a
1 month ago
If Polymarket had not added their additional context, we’d still be around 50-50. That in itself shows you the endorsement, if any, was not FORMAL (as required by the rules).
EmpirePending
1 month ago
According to the Federal Election Committee, an endorsement is done by letter. Where is RFK’s letter? https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/making-disbursements-ssf-or-connected-organization/endorsement-examples/
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Trumps Instagram is not a source for resolution according to the rules
n/a
1 month ago
On trumps Instagram he says rfk endorsed him
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Polymarket specifically said “formal” in the rules so that there would be no debate. If there is a debate it therefore means it was not formal.
EmpirePending
1 month ago
The price was 50c after RFK finished his speech, essentially stating the market didn’t know if it was a formal endorsement. That ambiguity therefore means it was not formal. It only went to 98/99 when polymarket added the false context. The fact that the market didn’t go to 99 after RFK stated his support for Trump proves it’s not a formal endorsement.
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Polymarket made a mistake, they should just own it now which would then set the record straight for any future situations. If this is resolved yes it muddy the waters for future markets since the Bernie one was resolved no
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Literally everybody is saying p4
Pogpogpog
1 month ago
The same morons who are whining over the market being “rigged” for YES want to try to end the market early as a NO instead of voting P4! It’s the 24th! What does that tell you?
EmpirePending
1 month ago
I also missed where RFK said he formally endorses Trump do you have a link
coconutPilled
1 month ago
you might have missed 'this market should resolve to "Yes."'
EmpirePending
1 month ago
News sources are irrelevant as they are not in the rules so this dispute boils down to whether support equals formal endorsement. US have sent $700m in aid to support Palestine but they do not endorse Palestine. Therefore support ≠ formal endorsement.
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Pointless posting articles when news sources are not mentioned in rules. Only RFK and reps statements matter
coconutPilled
1 month ago
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/rfk-jr-suspends-us-presidential-campaign-endorses-trump-2024-08-23/
EmpirePending
1 month ago
All “No” arguments summed up:
EmpirePending
1 month ago
The only news articles that matter in this market are ones that contain quotes from RFK or his representatives. Any article that has a quote from them states that it is not a formal endorsement
EmpirePending
1 month ago
RFK will vote for himself not trump.
n/a
1 month ago
Announcing support is declaring to vote.
EmpirePending
1 month ago
I formally think you’re dumb for holding something with this much risk for a 2% gain
Alexander343
1 month ago
Because you no bag holders refuse to accept reality.
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Agreed. There is no rush for this just leave it play out for the next week. If yes holders are so confident they will have no problem with it
PeterNh
1 month ago
The best option right now is to resolve this to "no outcome yet". That would give seven days where the campaign could put out a more clear statement. If this resolves "yes" and the campaign then says it is not a formal endorsement- bad. If this resolves "no" and in a few days there is a post on the website saying RFK formally endorses- also bad. Best to give it until then end and then make decision.
EmpirePending
1 month ago
The pure fact that there is this much debate about the resolution proves that it is not a formal endorsement. Formal definitively means that there is can be no debate, yet here we are debating.
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Exactly and that will bring on more attention from the government and regulation or even a shut down of polymarket, which is something none of us want
n/a
1 month ago
Indeed. Their mistakes are increasing both in gravity and frequency.
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Exactly and that will brings more attention and regulation or even a shut down of polymarket, which is something none of us want
n/a
1 month ago
Indeed. Their mistakes are increasing both in gravity and frequency.
EmpirePending
1 month ago
I agree they need to put much more time and resources into determining unambiguous rules. You cannot leave these things up to votes.
LMNOP
1 month ago
This is an issue not just with this market but many others. The Rules sections need to be more robust calling out specific criteria for resolution, i.e. "RFK must use the word 'endorse' or 'endorsing' for this market to resolve to Yes. Use of other words like 'support' will not count towards a Yes resolution." It would avoid so much confusion here.
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Whatever side you’re on you will agree that this so called endorsement is extremely ambiguous. Therefore, by definition, it is not formal.
EmpirePending
1 month ago
The added context is totally wrong. The context is right for the Friday market but they add it to this market and the November market too without realising the wording of the rules is different. Some polymarket employee mistakenly didn’t read the rules for each market he was adding context to.
EmpirePending
1 month ago
The probability of RFK saying this is not a formal endorsement is not zero and therefore this market cannot be resolved yet
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Congrats maniac but how did you know?
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Also email the press team asking is this a formal endorsement. press@teamkennedy.com
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Also email the press team asking is this a formal endorsement. mailto:press@teamkennedy.com
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Everybody tweet at RFK’s Campaign press secretary asking has RFK formally endorsed Trump. If she replies to us it’s game over. https://x.com/stefaniespear?s=21&t=7FgnUqPp7Ji6mCENCN9pgg
EmpirePending
1 month ago
I don’t have either of those options
IAmHarold
1 month ago
#voting-discussion & #evidence-rationale
EmpirePending
1 month ago
What channel are we supposed to talk in?
IAmHarold
1 month ago
everyone is encouraged to speak their voice in the discord: https://discord.com/invite/uma
EmpirePending
1 month ago
1. Did RFK say he will vote for Trump? No. 2. Did RFK say “I endorse Trump”? No. 3. Did any RFK representative say that he endorses Trump? No, one representative actually explicitly states there was a lawyer’s filing error regarding an endorsement, which suggests again that there is no endorsement. News reports are immaterial to this market as they are not mentioned in the rules.
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Genius
XiJinPing
1 month ago
advice for YES holders -- take profit on YES, buy NO for cheap, then vote for NO, profit
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Another way to look at how support does not equal formal endorsement. The US have sent $700m in aid to “support” Palestine during the war. But you sure as hell can agree that the US don’t endorse Palestine or hamas
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Saying you’re “throwing support” couldn’t be further from “formal”
EmpirePending
1 month ago
The only thing that counts as “formal” is if he stands in front of a camera and says “I am formally endorsing Trump” and that hasn’t happened
EmpirePending
1 month ago
The only thing that counts as “formal” is if he stands in front of a camera and says “I am formally endorsing Trump” and that hasn’t happened
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Thanks
IAmHarold
1 month ago
Make sure to join the UMA discord server and speak your mind!
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Link to the discord?
IAmHarold
1 month ago
Make sure to join the UMA discord server and speak your mind!
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Anyone holding yes is insane. The risk of this being overturned is not worth the extra 2% gain.
EmpirePending
1 month ago
It’s got disputed but now waiting for a second dispute, same situation as this market is in
n/a
1 month ago
wow! did that one get disputed successfully? If I remember correctly, he said verbatim that he does not drop out, just suspend his campaign in key battleground states
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Polymarket fucked up bad today. They also resolved “will RFK drop out by Friday” market to yes even though he clearly hasn’t dropped out.
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Polymarket fucked up bad today. They resolved “will RFK drop out by Friday” market to yes even though he clearly hasn’t dropped out.
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Support ≠ formal endorsement it’s very simple
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Can somebody explain who UMA actually are?
EmpirePending
1 month ago
hilary2win will go down in the history books
hillary2win
1 month ago
I will dispute it again in both markets, just waiting for the timer to countdown more, to buy an extra hour for raising awareness for NO holders and UMA discussions and comments here.
EmpirePending
1 month ago
If this is disputed again it might even be enough time for RFK to answer the question he will inevitably get: “do you formally endorse Trump” in which he will not say yes
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Nobody is denying RFK’s support of Trump. But within these markets the wording is vital. The wording of this specific market does not warrant a yes outcome
EmpirePending
1 month ago
An endorsement means you are voting for the person. It’s very clear RFK will not be voting for Trump.
EmpirePending
1 month ago
If this said “Will RFK express his support for Trump” it would be a yes. But it doesn’t. It specifically states formal endorsement.
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Fat 270k profit waiting on the other end for you
hillary2win
1 month ago
I know I'll have to now dispute each one again, it sucks, but its worth it
EmpirePending
1 month ago
They lumped all endorsement markets in the same pile when the wording of them is different. In the speech one it said “support” is enough for yes but in this one it does not say that and thus should be no
EmpirePending
1 month ago
What’s the point of the first dispute then?
JamesBond
1 month ago
Disputes don't get looked at until after dispute #2
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Why has the dispute not been looked at? Is that not supposed to go to a team to review the reasons for dispute and vote accordingly? It was only disputed for about 3 minutes
EmpirePending
1 month ago
You are a legend my friend
hillary2win
1 month ago
Disputed as promised. Working on getting usdc for disputing the November one also
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Polymarket must resolve this to no to keep faith in this system built on facts. When you resolve no for the Bernie market but yes for the RFK market everybody instantly loses trust in the system.
EmpirePending
1 month ago
They proposed yes for all 3 endorsement markets but the rules for this one is different. This one specifically states “formal” whereas the others don’t. This one also states that the resolution comes from the speech, whereas the others considered news reports as well.
EmpirePending
1 month ago
My source from Chelsea says they’re signing Antony instead
EmpirePending
1 month ago
This could be the most legendary polymarket moment ever if this works
hillary2win
1 month ago
At 40 minute mark I will start a dispute and pay the fee. I have almost everything ready. I need you guys to start writing good arguments for why this should resolve as NO. And I have no idea how UMA processes this. Lets be respectful and polite throughout the process and use logic to correctly resolve this market. I believe its sent to a vote for UMA to review manually? Lets see if we can also discuss this on UMAs chats and channels if they require it. Need your help! Lets win this! If i lose the $750 its okay, I just wanted to do the right thing for the smaller betters here as well as myself ofc. Lets WIN! Team NO
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Why are you buying more then
hillary2win
1 month ago
i know
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Yo hilary2win there’s no point in buying up more if nobody is gonna go in and dispute this thing. I don’t know how to do it
EmpirePending
1 month ago
His average cost is 1c
0x9387653E0135B40B320f01973a6524C6E07f6a91-1724450459869
1 month ago
23k ?!?!? Dam 🤣🤣🤣 there was whispers of this happening 2 days ago , didn't think to get out?
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Brother we’re on the same team
Munners
1 month ago
kys
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Somebody dispute this I don’t know what to do
EmpirePending
1 month ago
“Throwing support” is not a “formal endorsement”. This is very simple.
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Why would they add clarification rather than resolving it? Because they’re not confident themselves
EmpirePending
1 month ago
In a court of law this would not go down as an endorsement. Kennedy still wants to win the presidential race. Obviously it’s very unlikely but that is what he wants to do. If that doesn’t work out then he would be happy with Trump as president. Trump being RFK’s second choice for president is not an endorsement.
EmpirePending
1 month ago
A couple paragraphs down https://apnews.com/article/rfk-jr-trump-speech-arizona-a2638f89ddcb5de03edbe4574ca17d45
Scrounge
1 month ago
In the election matters filed the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania it stated in there that RFK Jr endorses Trump.
EmpirePending
1 month ago
And then his representatives came out and said it was a mistake and not an endorsement
Scrounge
1 month ago
In the election matters filed the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania it stated in there that RFK Jr endorses Trump.
EmpirePending
1 month ago
I typed it out yes
n/a
1 month ago
Do you hear yourself?
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Exactly and his representatives specifically stated it is not an endorsement
hillary2win
1 month ago
News articles do NOT count for this market. only this, The resolution source for this market will be official information from Robert F. Kennedy Jr. or one of his representatives.
EmpirePending
1 month ago
You can argue he endorsed Trump but it’s definitely not a “formal” endorsement which is what this market is
EmpirePending
1 month ago
The market for “Will RFK say Endorse during his speech” has gone to zero. Theres no way this can resolve to yes
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Support does not equal endorse
EmpirePending
1 month ago
You can support somebody without endorsing them.
EmpirePending
1 month ago
“Before the speech, his campaign had said in a Pennsylvania court filing Friday that he would be endorsing Trump for president. A spokesperson for Kennedy said the court filing had been made in error and would be updated, though Kennedy himself reiterated his support for Trump shortly afterward.” - AP
EmpirePending
1 month ago
What the fuck is going on
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Link?
hillary2win
1 month ago
"According to inside sources acceptance speech is being rewritten at the last minute for unknown reasons."
EmpirePending
1 month ago
That’s what it should be but you can argue the rules would count it as 2. It’s just too ambiguous terrible wording
n/a
1 month ago
Surely “Donald” is one, “Trump” is one and “Donald Trump” is one. Hmmm
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Yea like does “Donald Trump” count as 2?
ALevinson
1 month ago
The rules on the “Donald Trump” market are unclear. It’s says “resolve to yes if she says “Donald” or Trump” 5+ times. So if she says “Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Trump” is that 5?
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Agreed. Buy more 45-60
StevenBonnell
1 month ago
Never in the history of RNC and DNC has an acceptance speech been less than 30 minutes long. That happened only with Biden because of COVID. less than 30 min betters are in for a lot of trouble.
EmpirePending
1 month ago
shut up susan
n/a
1 month ago
My door is always open if either of you ever need to talk.
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Damn bro you’re taking it well I would’ve been filled with rage
naya
1 month ago
Miss click :/ Had voice call and clicked wrong button lmfao
EmpirePending
1 month ago
That’s crazy
Gregorius
1 month ago
someone bought 5k$ worth of Draws at 97% at last minute wtf. Missclick?
EmpirePending
1 month ago
The moment you switch sides to no is when it will happen
Justifax
1 month ago
I figure if I keep betting it will happen, it never will. This is how I will single handedly protect the world from global nuclear annihilation.
EmpirePending
1 month ago
https://x.com/bricsinfo/status/1824493447098798302?s=46&t=7FgnUqPp7Ji6mCENCN9pgg
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Hahaha I was joking I’m good
n/a
1 month ago
Take it easy, man
EmpirePending
1 month ago
I have lost my life savings betting on Iran but I will not be stopped. Pay check has just hit my account and USDC is loading as we speak
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Welcome back my friends
EmpirePending
1 month ago
He could easily bang out 7/8 tweets within 20 minutes and shit on everybody here
EmpirePending
1 month ago
I agree
iforgot
1 month ago
Here's what I think will happen: the press conference will have a few decent moments that the team would want to post. At the very least, they might retweet some MAGA sycophants praising him for his "tremendously successful" press conference.
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Y’all 11-15 guys are finished 😂
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Need to be more specific. What if it’s a loan deal? What if he signs a deal in summer but only comes to Chelsea in January or next year?
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Because I’m poor this is all I got broski
XiJinPing
1 month ago
if you don't believe it, then it's a great time to add YES for cheap. why aren't you doing that?
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Please people don’t take any comments as facts unless you can find it elsewhere too 😂😂
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Posts a made up story to pump the market then instantly starts selling his position
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Posts a made up story to pump the market then instantly starts selling his position
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Pumping made up stories so you can make a 2% profit that’s sad
XiJinPing
1 month ago
Report: Netanyahu has agreed to compromise on the ceasefire negotiation terms, and added much needed flexibility. A ceasefire negotiation looks very likely.
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Stop pumping bs send a link if it’s real
XiJinPing
1 month ago
Report: Netanyahu has agreed to compromise on the ceasefire negotiation terms, and added much needed flexibility. A ceasefire negotiation looks very likely.
EmpirePending
1 month ago
The current number of tweets is 12 right?
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Holy shit those were two giant no buys
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Cry more
Justifax
1 month ago
XijinPinig, you're constantly scamming. Everyone can see that. @jcal I don't see "Netanyahu closer to accept the Hamas terms" in the link you provided.
EmpirePending
1 month ago
If anything it’s a good thing because it gives the world real time probabilities of an attack happening
EmpirePending
1 month ago
It’s not unethical nobody gets harmed from this. It’s just another market to bet on just like any other
EmpirePending
1 month ago
It’s not unethical nobody gets harmed from this. It’s just another market to bet on just like any other
n/a
1 month ago
Betting on whether or not a country will bomb another (and rooting for that outcome)?!? @Polymarket, this unethical and wrong ON ALL LEVELS no matter how you attempt to justify it.
EmpirePending
1 month ago
You mean it’s being used by Israel against hezbollah
n/a
1 month ago
Chemical weapons starting being used by Hezbollah against Israel https://x.com/sentdefender/status/1823449939776823643
EmpirePending
1 month ago
U.S. President Joe Biden states that he believes Iran will not launch an Attack against Israel if a Ceasefire and Hostage Deal is reached during Thursday’s Negotiations.
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Nothing ever happens
Fonz97
1 month ago
How’s it going my fellow “nothing ever happens” brothers.. let’s make some money
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Well everyone seems to believe maniac is an insider with knowledge that it’s a boy
n/a
1 month ago
he means, why would we trust the random guy saying it?
EmpirePending
1 month ago
😂😂
TheFinalWord
1 month ago
lol balllerr deleted his comment
EmpirePending
1 month ago
No I don’t but it looks like they’re holding off until the ceasefire talks start
n/a
1 month ago
Do you really think that there will be a ceasefire? I doubt it
EmpirePending
1 month ago
It’s literally the front page story on Reuters https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/only-gaza-ceasefire-can-delay-irans-israel-response-sources-say-2024-08-13/
Justifax
1 month ago
Links generally make it more impactful.
EmpirePending
1 month ago
I linked it
Justifax
1 month ago
Links generally make it more impactful.
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Not fake news this account is extremely reliable https://x.com/sentdefender/status/1823350609233186883?s=46&t=7FgnUqPp7Ji6mCENCN9pgg
EmpirePending
1 month ago
“ Three Iranian Officials have told Reuters that if a Ceasefire and Hostage Deal is reached for the Gaza Strip during this week’s Negotiations, they may consider not launching a Direct Retaliatory Strike against Israel. However, these Officials further stated that if they feel Israel is Delaying or “Dragging-Out” the Negotiations, then Iran alongside Proxy Groups like Hezbollah would launch a Major Strike.”
EmpirePending
1 month ago
“ Three Iranian Officials have told Reuters that if a Ceasefire and Hostage Deal is reached for the Gaza Strip during this week’s Negotiations, they may consider not launching a Direct Retaliatory Strike against Israel. However, these Officials further stated that if they feel Israel is Delaying or “Dragging-Out” the Negotiations, then Iran alongside Proxy Groups like Hezbollah would launch a Major Strike.”
EmpirePending
1 month ago
People buying yes because hamas fired a rocket into the ocean lol
EmpirePending
1 month ago
😂😂😂
ootharju
1 month ago
TA on gambling markets is crazy AAHHAHAH
EmpirePending
1 month ago
It makes sense that Iran would try to mess with Trump because he will be a lot tougher on them if elected compared with Harris
diddy
1 month ago
The attack is very much possible actually, Trump is having an interview in 1.30 hr, and its 1:24am in Iran, it would be ideal for them to attack @3-5am. And in addition, they also recently hacked Trump's campaign.
EmpirePending
1 month ago
buy no then
OP2024
1 month ago
It's a No. Iranian leaders are not entirely stupid.
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Maniac has 13.5k girl shares haha he split his shares 😭😭
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Or better yet sell it to tmz for 10-20k easy money without having to bother with this poly market shit
EmpirePending
1 month ago
What do you mean
Tones
1 month ago
With what credibility though ?
EmpirePending
1 month ago
If anyone had info about the baby being a boy it would make sense to post it here so that the market instantly goes to 100c and then they can sell and get their profits rather than waiting around for an official announcement which could be another month or two
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Maniac is selling
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Is this unknown evidence you have definitive? Or are they just hints?
JeffreyBezos
1 month ago
because this market is infested by 2 insider rats @0xmaniac and @BellumM who know it is a boy and are buying every and any offer that is put up. I am not going to lose my money to 2 scumbags who know for sure it is a boy. You don't have to buy boy but I would rather burn my money in a BBQ than bet on girl. Those 2 have exposed that without a doubt it will be a boy. Also I have unconvered 2 pieces of uknown evidence that it is a boy, maybe I will post them later on
EmpirePending
1 month ago
No link and no position haha
n/a
1 month ago
Recent filing shows registry for "Leo Bieber" -California Baby Registry
EmpirePending
1 month ago
Maniac if you're right you gotta at least tell us how you knew after it gets revealed
EmpirePending
2 months ago
The top buyer of boy had approx 1k shares of girl two weeks ago. He is not an insider he is a troll and you guys are falling for it hahaha a 50-50 market and he has single handedly swung it to 70-30
EmpirePending
2 months ago
haha if you're not rich and you're betting 15k on a baby's gender you need a mental health check
0xmaniac
2 months ago
I'm glad you think I'm rich! Thank you!
EmpirePending
2 months ago
An attack should still count even if it is intercepted
0xD11e
2 months ago
A single rocket would be intercepted. They'd have to shoot a whole bunch to overwhelm air defense. That's why the chance is so low.
EmpirePending
2 months ago
Regarding the top buyer of boy, I think it’s just a rich dude having some fun. If it’s girl he will win a $10k profit, which for anybody inside the Bieber circle is tiny money. The account also holds 400 shares of girl which makes no sense.
EmpirePending
2 months ago
godspeed
ionlywin
2 months ago
I love that whales are trying to manipulate this clear yes, i am going omega bags into this tomorrow
EmpirePending
2 months ago
Stop letting them know it’s happenin. Let them keep betting no I still have to buy more
ionlywin
2 months ago
https://x.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/1821607452691075098
EmpirePending
2 months ago
They just messed up the wording about dropping out. It could happen where harris accepts the fox debate then backs out of it and then later on they do a debate on another network
Arbiter-of-Truth
2 months ago
Somebody knows something
EmpirePending
2 months ago
Can you explain why a rate cut would further contribute to the collapse of the carry trade?
rjpoly
2 months ago
Not an expert but I've been doing some ready on the Yen-USD carry trade which seems to be the current explanation for the massive stock sell-off in Japan. Basically it relies on the difference in government debt interest rates between US and Japan and a relatively stable exchange rate in order to be profitable. But both of those factors have started to shift: The yen has been rapidly appreciating against the dollar and the Bank of Japan just this year has started raising rates for the first time in many years. Now all this turmoil would make you think the Fed will act quickly with a rate cut to support the economy, but the kicker is that in this case a rate cut in the US would further contribute to the collapse of the carry trade. Seems like a real quagmire here and I have no idea how to trade it. Used to have a much bigger position in this market but reduced it heavily. Anyway there is bound to be a lot of volatility in the near term, stay safe and maybe don't look at your stock portfolio for awhile.