币加锁

这是好事儿啊

[币加锁 @mr_de2022]

@ConstantinGao @BestLidamao 我的意思是 Tom Lee 已经在水下这么多了 不想割肉的话 不质押也是白 hold，那 POS 的奖励其实就只是被动 hold 给的一点利息

[币加锁 @mr_de2022]

@22333D 茧蛹吗

[币加锁 @mr_de2022]

@ConstantinGao @BestLidamao Tom Lee 这种不质押又能怎么办呢。已经上了贼船的，这个钱不要白不要

[币加锁 @mr_de2022]

@ConstantinGao @BestLidamao 这点我有点不明白，不靠逐利维护靠什么啊？如果没有经济动机，谁愿意做

[币加锁 @mr_de2022]

@ConstantinGao 217 /股万买了点，今天 139 万/股补了点

[币加锁 @mr_de2022]

@rexter07543830 @samsg888 Burry对科技/AI的看空立场是阶段性的，真正大规模公开做空英伟达相关标的（包括put期权和直接空头）主要集中在2025年末至2026年，并非持续从第一天开始。他历史上也有多次判断失误的案例。

[币加锁 @mr_de2022]

@bboczeng 空单下了吗 ？没下的话可惜了

[币加锁 @mr_de2022]

MSTR 5 月卖没卖 BTC，他竟然也能舔着脸结算成 No. 官方给的理由竟然是 MSTR 的 K-8 是次月 1 号出的，annoucement 超过了他们接纳的时间。其实 K8 就是次月 1 号出，是不可能 5.31出的。而是否卖币这个行为也只能从 K8 披露才能真正的 confirm。 玩过 Polymarket 的人都知道，这个合约 31 号结算，是会延期 至少 24 小时。所以在未结算合约时 K8 已经出来了。UMA 大户竟然能为了抢钱，直接选择睁眼说瞎话放无赖！Polymarket 现在不仅是内幕交易的游乐场，对散户来说更难的是，即便你猜对了，也要看你和 UMA 大户的持仓是否同一个方向，否则即便你对了也会亏钱

[币加锁 @mr_de2022]

@momoy917 @Polymarket 伊朗和美国永久挺火协议我买的 No，被狠狠的割了一大笔。新闻里说的都是 60-Day MoU，他能结算成 Yes. @Polymarket @PolymarketTrade 这个就是纯诈骗，Yes or No 取决于 UMA 大户

[币加锁 @mr_de2022]

@22333D 第二个配图有意思哈哈

[币加锁 @mr_de2022]

@jheioff 每次只要一出事，就会发现还是Binance靠谱。所以这么多年我自从用了币安之后就再也没用过其他的交易所

[币加锁 @mr_de2022]

@0xzzwu @bojie_li 人家是华为天下少年，所以他觉得自己不是人。

[币加锁 @mr_de2022]

@ConstantinGao @vonzz6 Polyscam的解释权在自己

[币加锁 @mr_de2022]

@22333D 😈我老娘上个月刚去过这儿

[币加锁 @mr_de2022]

@0xAA_Science 这种弱智帖子的意义是什么？智障还是多去玩小红书吧

[币加锁 @mr_de2022]

@KangYu8964 @wangzhian8848 台湾是骑手，不是妻子

[币加锁 @mr_de2022]

美伊永久协议签署、MSTR 5月底是否卖了BTC，这两个合约足以充分说明PolyMarket的结算是极其随意的。完全是由大户（UMA大户）来决定的，不需要根据事实，只要随便编一个理由，管你信不信，都不需要有说服力的自圆其说就可以肆无忌惮的掠夺普通人的财富。建议大家除了赌球这种结算结果毫无争议的东西之外，不要在上面玩任何新奇的合约。

[币加锁 @mr_de2022]

Why this must resolve to NO for June 15 — No signed agreement existed by the deadline

https://t.co/N52Lyz2QtQ
I hold a large No position in this market and believe the correct resolution is NO. Here are the key reasons:

1. The formal signing date is after the market deadline
The announced agreement’s formal signing is scheduled for June 19, 2026 in Geneva. The market resolution deadline for this contract is June 15, 2026, 11:59 PM ET.
As of the resolution cutoff, no signed agreement existed. Only an announcement and confirmation of a draft MoU/text had occurred. The fact that the parties themselves scheduled the formal signing for June 19 proves they did not consider the agreement executed on June 14-15.
A contract or agreement cannot be considered established and binding before the parties have actually signed it. This is a basic principle in commercial dealings: parties may announce that they have “reached agreement” or “finalized the text,” but the deal is not executed until signatures are affixed (or equivalent formal adoption occurs).

2. Even under ordinary commercial contract standards, this would not qualify
In normal business practice between companies:

Announcing that “we have agreed on the terms” or “the contract text is finalized” does not make the contract effective.
The contract only becomes binding upon execution (signing by authorized representatives).
Until that moment, either party can still walk away, and material terms can still change.

Here, the formal signing was deliberately scheduled for June 19 — after the June 15 market deadline. This alone demonstrates that as of the resolution time, no binding agreement meeting the market’s criteria had been established.

3. The announced MoU is explicitly interim/temporary, not permanent

The agreement is structured as a 60-day ceasefire extension + framework for future negotiations.
Core issues (nuclear program details, long-term sanctions relief, etc.) are deferred to talks after the MoU.
It is repeatedly described in reliable reporting as an “interim framework,” “temporary arrangement,” or “MoU,” with the explicit goal of enabling subsequent negotiations for a permanent end.

Market rules clearly exclude temporary agreements and ceasefire extensions. This deal matches that exclusion exactly.

4. No qualifying “permanent peace deal” was established by June 15
Per the market resolution criteria, a Yes outcome requires either:

A written agreement that explicitly indicates military hostilities have ended or will permanently cease, or
Clear public confirmation from both governments that such a qualifying permanent agreement has been definitively established.

What existed by June 15 was:

An announcement of a temporary 60-day MoU.
Confirmation of agreed text.
A scheduled signing date in the future.

This falls far short of establishing a permanent peace deal by the deadline. Statements such as “the deal is complete” referred only to the interim phase, not a final permanent resolution.

Because no signed agreement existed by the June 15 deadline, and because the announced arrangement is a temporary/interim framework rather than a permanent peace deal, the correct resolution for this contract is NO.
@Polymarket @PolymarketTrade

[币加锁 @mr_de2022]

@LinChen46623711 @wangzhian8848 震惊！原来台湾人这么厉害！

[币加锁 @mr_de2022]

@Ragnar_Bavari @Vaybor @PeterSchiff @saylor @grok did Peter Schmitt really say this before ?