$1k > $120K+ in 10 months predicting on @MyriadMarkets
The initial goal was $10k (Season 1).
This week i just shot past the $100k mark (Season 2).
It's been an insane journey and i hope to take it to the next level in 2026 🙏
Exactly this.
Even if you get into the fine print, I still think the evidence met Myriad’s rules.
Agreed re: Trump's statement & framing being key evidence. Which was clearly referenced publicly by both Russia & Ukraine multiple times.
The wider issue is like you said: prediction markets can’t lose sight of "why" the market existed in the first place, or the reality of the events.
Did both sides agree to a ceasefire? Yes.
The prisoner exchange was one part of the arrangement, not the whole agreement. Like you said we don't need ceasefires to enable POW exchanges, as seen historically.
Unfortunately, when you get caught up in interpreting your own rules, selectively ignore parts of them, while forgetting the intention of the market, you defeat the entire point of the market.
Ceasefires are not always black and white. But in this case, i think it was pretty clear cut. Missing those nuances here is ultimately a misunderstanding of the topic by the platform itself.
Appreciate your take @Domahhhh
I agree with you. I think the most important piece of evidence was actually Trump's tweet which framed it as part of his effort to end the war.
Trump's statement was not immaterial; in fact, it's the most important piece of the puzzle. It was directly referenced by both sides in subsequent communications.
Trump's statement also makes clear that the agreed terms are a suspension of ALL kinetic activity for three days. This is exactly what a ceasefire involves. The humanitarian prisoner exchange was clearly a supplement. We've had dozens of prisoner exchanges without ceasefires.
When you adjudicate rule disputes, it's very important to not insert yourself between your question and the reality-based answer. This is the cardinal sin again and again, and the one made here.
It seems like Myriad decided that it didn't seem "important" enough to them, and then they worked backwards from their editorial conclusion and invented reasons it didn't meet their rules. They not only set aside their crafted rules (which yes met), they ALSO set aside the point of the market (will Russia and Ukraine agree to stop fighting, also yes).
Perhaps Myriad thought their market was about something much bigger, perhaps even a market that represents the end of the war, or something quite close. (Ok, but if that is the case, then you need much better rules at the outset. Ceasefires within conflicts are very common, and differentiating them in a granular way becomes difficult.) They then took their own definition, that wasn't encompassed by the rules, and twisted the fine print in a way that proved to be very unfair to people who bet yes, and also contradicted reality in the form of official statements/tons of headlines. This ceasefire was definitely not solely humanitarian, insofar as what was announced by every actor here.
I'll circle back to what I think would be a great fix for preventing stupid rule fights -- explaining why you've created the market. If Myriad wrote, for instance, that "this market is designed to represent a significant, major breakthrough for peace in a war that has lasted four years" (or whatever they write) then it's very easy and very fair to point to your WHY that you wrote at the very beginning, and say, yeah, this was not a major event in the grand scheme of the conflict. [This definitely would've solved Zelensky suit, because the reason that market existed was because of Zelensky's promise not to wear a suit again until the war was over -- a promise that he hasn't broken yet]. Pre-clarify the point of the market BEFORE a rule fight takes place, as a way to guide any future disputes. It won't solve every issue, and could introduce its own problems on the periphery, but so often the markets get fought over fine print nonsense that makes it all feel very stupid (because it is very stupid).
When reality is inverted by a prediction market, you've undermined your whole reason for existing. We're here to predict what happens. Ceasefire explicitly was announced by everyone, rules met, yes got it right. Yes should win. End of.
Is @axios the new inverse OIL signal?
Every week we get the same “peace” headlines causing OIL to crash.
Then Iran denies the reports as false or misleading, sending OIL straight back up.
Meanwhile, massive OIL shorts conveniently stack up right before the report goes out.
SCOOP: The White House believes it's getting close to an agreement with Iran on a one-page memorandum of understanding to end the war and set a framework for more detailed nuclear negotiations. My story on @axios
https://t.co/Tyse6wWTSj
@saurav_tweets Api data randomly returned completely a massive number out of nowhere> market flipped > it got retracted > market fliped again > some cooked, some got cooked 😅
Prediction markets certainly should trump polls virtually 100% of the time. Polls suffer from a variety of well-known biases and dysfunctions; prediction markets incent truth seeking via skin in the game.