5 ms·
POTUS literally, literally announced that the US had control over all (!) of Venezuela. Now, sure, that's kind of a lie. But (ahem) By The Definition of The B
by ajross 10mo ago
POTUS literally, literally announced that the US had control over all (!) of Venezuela.
Now, sure, that's kind of a lie. But (ahem) By The Definition of The Bet, actual control is not required. Only a military offensive intended to establish control. What purer definition of intent can you have than the decisionmaker's literal statement? QED.
No, this is cheating. Now, sure, the bets placed seemed very likely to be fraudulent. Which is cheating too. But there's not "technically" here. Polymarket is playing games with its bets. And that's fraud, even if it's got company.
- deleted 10mo ago[deleted]
- lxgr 10mo agoPolymarket is not a broker, counterparty, or even resolver, so the only thing they can arguably be criticized for is hosting a market without a sufficiently clear definition of "invasion".
- ajross 10mo agoHow can they not be a "broker" when they handled the transaction?! How can they not be a "resolver" when they're the ones refusing to pay based on their own determination? Also, what definition of "invasion" are you thinking of (please cite) which does not apply here? With all respect, that's 100% bonkers.
- lxgr 10mo agoThey don't handle transactions. It's a blockchain-based platform that they design and operate, but part of that design is that they don't hold money themselves, nor are they the arbiter to any of the markets hosted on their platform. > Also, what definition of "invasion" are you thinking of (please cite) which does not apply here? No idea what a better definition of "invasion" could have been, but the only one that's relevant for the resolution is that listed on the market description on Polymarket (which many traders don't even read, but that's a different story).
- hyperhello 10mo agoThis argument seems to be about the real meaning of words versus their overloaded legal analogues. I can’t imagine Venezuela’s military kidnapping Trump, then saying they would run the United States now, being parsed like this.
- lxgr 10mo agoThat's not my point at all. I'm only saying that your criticism and claims of fraud are probably directed at the wrong entity.
- cyanydeez 10mo agoThere is an arbiter tho. That's the point of the article. Unless you tell us who inputs the bits for a bet, you're just spewing chatgpt bable. Someone flips the bits to the bet.
- nabla9 10mo agoThat's not what it says.
- reshlo 10mo agoIsn’t it? > This market will resolve to "Yes" if the United States commences a military offensive intended to establish control over any portion of Venezuela between November 3, 2025, and January 31, 2026, 11:59 PM ET. Otherwise, this market will resolve to "No".
- nabla9 10mo agoThe US attack had no intent to control territory. It was to nab one guy. Second paragraph establishes that after intent, there must be de facto control of the territory. 1. Attack intent to control did not happen. 2. De facto control of Venezuelan territory did not happen.
- tremon 10mo agoSecond paragraph establishes that after intent, there must be de facto control of the territory. The way I read it, the second paragraph serves as the definition of territory ("any portion of Venezuela"), not as a condition for resolving the bet. The invasion doesn't need to be successful, it just needs to have the intent you specified in 1. ...which makes the entire bet like quicksand, because it relies on the public statements from a regime known for its "inaccurate" messaging. The more interesting question for rules lawyers is whether the president itself classifies as "any portion of Venezuela" -- the claim doesn't explicitly limit itself to only geographical portions.
- monocasa 10mo agoKidnapping the president of a country is very clear intent to exert control over a country. The second "de facto" part is about the preconditions of the bet, to define what is Venezuela versus the US.
- prmoustache 10mo ago
- watwut 10mo agoWhy is this downvoted? The argument is solid. USA did not achieved control, but its leadership apparently think they have it.
- lxgr 10mo agoBecause it's blaming Polymarket for something not within its control, which is imprecise. TFA makes the same mistake, fwiw.
- cubefox 10mo agoThat's a minor flaw but the comment seems mostly correct.
- JKCalhoun 10mo agoIt's almost like they were not going to pay up regardless. Might as well have bet "doll hairs"…
- lxgr 10mo agoThey are paying up, just for the "no" outcome.
- hn_acc1 10mo agoThey ARE, or INTEND to? It's not Jan 31, 2026 yet, so, AFAICT, only the "Yes" option can be short-circuited if it occurs. They can't pay the "No" side until Feb 1, 2026, right?
- lxgr 10mo agoGood point, so for completeness: They'll pay out either "Yes" or "No", but definitely not nobody or themselves (except if they're also "Yes" or "No" holders).
- lenerdenator 10mo ago
- SllX 10mo agoThere is nothing both public and credible to substantiate the claim by the POTUS. It’s possible we have de facto control of the regime through some backroom that only the Trump Administration knows about, but that’s just speculative on my part. We don’t know this is actually the case, and thus far there hasn’t been anything to substantiate the existence of such a thing. So we’re at at a point where if put on the spot, gun to my head, I had to answer whether the United States controls the Government of Venezuela in any meaningful way, I would have to say “No” despite what Trump himself said. This is subject to change, pending further evidence made available to the American people.
- reshlo 10mo agoIt doesn’t matter whether the US actually has control, only that the military action was taken with intent to establish control. >This market will resolve to "Yes" if the United States commences a military offensive intended to establish control over any portion of Venezuela between November 3, 2025, and January 31, 2026, 11:59 PM ET. Otherwise, this market will resolve to "No".
- SllX 10mo agoWhat the military actually did was a raid which captured Maduro and his wife, and likely took out some of Venezuela’s anti-air capabilities—for all the good they did them—in the process. As far as we know, that was the intent. Actually establishing control is an occupational effort. I see your argument, and I think it is even defensible but I think it falls short. An actual resolution to this question may require a judge to weigh in on the contract.
- hunterpayne 10mo agoThe Chavez Museum was also destroyed...but no it wasn't an invasion. It didn't control land which is the definition in this case. The blockade provides de facto control which is what Trump is referring to.
- 10mo ago
- jcranmer 10mo agoThe current POTUS is not a credible source.
- NamlchakKhandro 10mo ago[flagged]
- devwastaken 10mo agoVenezuala government calls it an invasion. U.S left with the evidence, do we trust the fascist regime of venezuala or the elected president of the U.S?
- lxgr 10mo agoIt seems like it would be common sense to trust neither party to the conflict to arbitrate such markets. That’s why e.g. for presidential election, the criterion is usually a quorum of different news outlets and not either party running.
- Phelinofist 10mo ago> do we trust the fascist regime of venezuala or the fascist president of the U.S? FTFY
- NewJazz 10mo agoOn the intent of the US administration?
- cyanydeez 10mo agoYeah, actually. He's basically a spokesperson. A non credible one. Someone like Stephen Miller is more credible.
- margalabargala 10mo agoObviously. The things the POTUS says, are intended to further the US Government's goals. The actual statements made may be true or false. If POTUS says "We did X because Y", that's no guarantee that Y is the reason that X was done, or even that X was done at all. That just means that POTUS would like people to think that Y was the reason X was done. That Trump is also a serial liar is not actually relevant here, this is true for every President. They make statements in service of their agenda, not in service of the truth.
- deleted 10mo ago[deleted]
- zahlman 10mo agoIt's not as if the site can steal money this way. Either something else happens before the 31st that does meet their definition, or else they have to pay out the "no" side.
- Bombthecat 10mo agoIs the potus a credible source, ( as per definition of the bet)