¬hamza

bourgeois scum

[¬hamza @kroneckerdeltaa]

In 2009 as a young child, at a county fair I vividly recall bumping into Chris Wright as I ate a bowl of watermelon. I remember how he so trustingly looked deep into my eyes and in a stern voice informed me “son make sure you don’t eat those seeds, lest a watermelon tree grow in your belly”. Never had a grownup been so upfront with me about the horrors of this delicious fruit. I knew then energy executive Chris Wright was a stand up guy and would never lie. He truly is a man of true integrity befitting his position.

[Open Source Intel @Osint613]

US Energy Secretary Wright:

About 15m barrels a day coming out of the Arabian Gulf.

[¬hamza @kroneckerdeltaa]

Our analysis proved correct 🎉

[Thanos Chad @evan_semet]

I am sized up decently large on a geopol discretionary trade, which is quite unusual for my trading activity.

Even if they do reach an agreement, the issue is mines. If the Strait is heavily mined, it will take a minimum of four weeks to clear, and that’s assuming everything goes perfectly. Right now the Trump administration claims there are no mines, or only limited mines, but leaked intelligence reports suggest the Strait is heavily mined.

I also think it’s heavily mined because of the Apache rescue incident this week. After an Iranian drone shot down a U.S. Apache, two American pilots were stranded in the Strait. The military reportedly used unmanned drone boats to rescue them. As far as I’m aware, the Navy has never done that before, and the pilots were stranded for roughly four hours. Iran could have killed them if it wanted to. My guess is there were backchannel negotiations to avoid escalation. But the bigger point is that I think the reason the U.S. military sent in unmanned boats is because they know the Strait is mined.

Furthermore, even after all mines are removed, no insurance company is going to be willing to cover these ships until additional vetting is done, adding on a minimum of another week to the timeline.

There are also other nuances that favor a No resolution. The market is based on a 7-day moving average, which creates additional lag even if traffic starts recovering immediately. On top of that, some ships may choose to disable or limit AIS tracking, meaning reported volumes may understate actual activity and delay confirmation of any recovery.

TLDR: regardless of whether a deal eventually happens, I don’t think Strait of Hormuz shipping volumes return to their previous levels by month-end. This is INDEPENDENT of whatever probability you ascribe to the deal actually going through, to which I will not personally opine on.

https://t.co/jOHkWvKOrt

[¬hamza @kroneckerdeltaa]

The price of a barrel feels so Mickey Mouse to me, we are not serious people 🙃

[HFI Research @HFI_Research]

Updated chart:

It will be surreal to have $60+ 3-2-1 crack spread and $70 crude.

[¬hamza @kroneckerdeltaa]

A recap of our big wins in the recent lat am elections, pt.2/2

In Colombia, we expected a turnout of less than 65% but more than the 60% of the first round. This one had us a tad more worried, given how quick the count would be, we anticipated a full result by 8:30 PM EST. We modeled Espriella, capturing ~80% of Valencia's votes and between 45-50% of Fajardo's. These were the two largest vote shares, but we did calculate captures of every single other candidate down to Matamoros 6k votes. Further, we expected the 3-5% new voters in this round to vote largely for Capeda, given that we expected him to win the Caribbean and Bogota. These were the regions we expected the most new voters who didn't vote in the first round to come from. All that being said, we expected Espriella to win the election with a margin of between 0.5-2.3%.

https://t.co/pc1tnqp7oJ

[¬hamza @kroneckerdeltaa]

A recap of our big wins in the recent lat am elections, pt.1/2

In Peru, we had a substantial position on Fujimori, which we sized into largely after ~70% of the vote had already been counted. This allowed us to model outcomes for every single polling station with votes left. We fully expected the count to flip to Lopez. We were confident so long as the difference remained under 96k votes, Fujimori would flip it back when expats' votes were counted. For full transparency, we completely sold out of this position between 97-98c. The risk of a recount or of unaccepted ballots being challenged en masse wasn't worth the extra 2-3c given our size. This election was unique in how slow the count came in, we were able to model things to a relatively high degree of accuracy.

https://t.co/Cey21PY6uk

[¬hamza @kroneckerdeltaa]

@0xPredictor I work with @evan_semet and the profile is ProfessionalPunter.

[¬hamza @kroneckerdeltaa]

Labour takes it in line with our position. Interestingly, we felt pretty confident our election model held so long as turnout didn't exceed ~63%. Once the turnout was confirmed at 58.75%, we were very comfortable holding till the call tonight. Congrats if you followed along 🎉.

[¬hamza @kroneckerdeltaa]

Our large Makerfield by-election position explained 🧵

https://t.co/RogQIpVhRq

[Thanos Chad @evan_semet]

thanks for playing kishco

[¬hamza @kroneckerdeltaa]

At this point we are debating semantics and not what ending enrichment is but sure. If we concede that explicit wording to halt enrichment can be justified as a yes. Will you concede anything mentioning just the status quo shouldn’t count? Because it shouldn’t be the markets scope to infer, unless Iran also publicly states ALL their enrichment capabilities are destroyed or dysfunctional.

[¬hamza @kroneckerdeltaa]

Small typo meant to @evan_semet

[¬hamza @kroneckerdeltaa]

Looks to us like this market is being set up for another controversial UMA decision. Wording like 'maintaining the status quo' should not resolve this market to a yes.

The US administration has acknowledged that zero enrichment is essentially impossible. President Trump this week told the NYT's David Sanger - 'Iran would be forever limited to enriching at low levels that "could never be used by the military" ... "They can never go beyond a certain amount," ... But when asked whether that limit was the same as in the Obama-era agreement ... he only said that the new accord would assure that "they can only enrich for nonmilitary purposes. Forever."' I would like to understand how that could sound like END ALL ENRICHMENT. The markets' rules explicitly state, "Agreements to merely limit or cap the level or quality of enrichment—such as reducing enrichment to below weapons-grade thresholds—will not qualify."

Furthermore, the current status quo is murky at best. Isfahan, Natanz, and Fordow might've been extensively hit, but their current operational capacity remains unknown. Additionally, the Pickaxe Mountain complex is relatively unscathed. It is beyond the scope of this market to attempt to infer the Iranian regime's current enrichment capabilities.

For full transparency, we have a small (relative to our total position size) position on the no. But we feel our understanding that Iran will in no way agree to much under the JCPOA's 3.67% cap is fair. It would further violate Iran's rights as a signatory to NPT, where Article IV establishes the "inalienable right" of all state parties to develop, research, and use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination. One could easily argue that this establishes the current status quo more clearly than a vague inference about Iran's current capabilities.

@even_semet will post more on the specific wallets holding the yes side of this market and what we have heard regarding the UMA folks' views; please follow the rest in his post. Below is a link to the market in question, the NYT article quoted is linked in the replies.

https://t.co/EH73oYeVHd

[Thanos Chad @evan_semet]

There is currently a SCAM attempt in progress on a Middle East @Polymarket market. “Iran agrees to end enrichment of uranium by …” Multiple UMA whales are sized up on yes, due to their proposed bullshit “interpretation” of what the document will end up saying regarding nuclear enrichment. Now is the time for a market clarification to prevent this @shayne_coplan @kea1on

As much as I am not a fan of you @mattkalish , now is your time to bring attention to this.

In the replies, I will link screenshots of the top @UMAprotocol "friends" with very large positions.

Market in question: https://t.co/ht8G2Yp8SM

[¬hamza @kroneckerdeltaa]

https://t.co/7lfMUOcgDg

[¬hamza @kroneckerdeltaa]

What we see as an especially good signal is the wards' labour does best in are in line with where our internal election models require strong labour showings. Three days out from the election, we remain confident in our position!

[¬hamza @kroneckerdeltaa]

Our large Makerfield by-election position explained 🧵

https://t.co/RogQIpVhRq

[¬hamza @kroneckerdeltaa]

Lastly, Labour continues to perform well in polls that have been released over the past 2-week period, including our own privately commissioned polling.