Minimum to count as military conflict: either a combined 10 people die as part of action by either military OR a confirmed airstrike on Venezuelan soil (doesn't have to be on military targets).
Update 2025-08-28 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): - A US Navy action against a narco-boat causing 10+ fatalities counts only if it occurs in Venezuelan waters.
Update 2025-09-03 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): - Ambiguous location won't count: If the location of an incident is unclear or disputed, it will not count toward YES. Location must be clearly established (e.g., USN interdictions must be clearly within Venezuelan waters).
Update 2025-09-03 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): - Only internationally recognized Venezuelan waters will count; incidents in disputed or solely Venezuelan-claimed areas (e.g., Essequibo maritime claims) will not.
Update 2025-09-03 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): - For the narco-boat scenario, incidents only count if clearly within internationally recognized Venezuelan waters (as previously stated).
If the US and Venezuelan navies exchange fire, location is irrelevant; the Venezuelan-waters restriction does not apply to this case.
Update 2025-10-25 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): - If Venezuelan military takes action against US targets (e.g., sinking a cruise ship in US waters), this counts as YES regardless of location, consistent with the rule that military-vs-military conflict counts regardless of location.
Update 2025-10-25 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): - A gunfight between smugglers and US Coast Guard (law enforcement) does not count as military conflict, even if 10+ people die. This is not considered an act of war.
Update 2025-10-29 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): - The market will not resolve immediately at the end of 2025. The creator will wait a day or two before resolving, especially if an attack occurred near year-end and final casualty numbers are not yet known.
Military action that takes place in 2025 but is reported after December 31, 2025 can still count toward resolution.
Update 2025-10-30 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): - Covert operations that remain unreported will not count. The deaths must be from a confirmed military operation or airstrike. Unconfirmed incidents (e.g., cartel members dying in 'workplace accidents' that might have been US operations) do not qualify.
The creator expects any qualifying military action to be reported quickly, especially given the current administration's communication style.
Update 2025-12-04 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): - The market does not require civilian casualties (e.g., strikes on schools, churches, or weddings) to resolve YES. Military targets or narco-boats meeting the death threshold or airstrike criteria are sufficient.
Update 2025-12-04 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): - A Special Forces operation that only kills Maduro (with no other deaths) would NOT resolve YES. The market requires either 10+ combined deaths OR a confirmed airstrike on Venezuelan soil to resolve YES.
Update 2025-12-16 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): - A blockade of ports does not qualify as a military conflict unless it meets the stated criteria (10+ deaths or confirmed airstrike).
Resolution is based on the specific written criteria, not external definitions like UN resolutions on acts of aggression.
Update 2025-12-29 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): - A verified strike on a facility in Venezuela would count as YES (meeting the airstrike criterion).
Proper confirmation is required; unverified claims do not qualify.
Update 2025-12-29 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): - A confirmed airstrike on Venezuelan soil counts as YES regardless of whether it kills anyone. The 10-death threshold and airstrike criterion are separate conditions (either one is sufficient for YES resolution).
Update 2025-12-29 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): - The creator has not yet done proper research to confirm whether a reported airstrike occurred. Any believable confirmation would be needed before resolving YES based on the airstrike criterion.
Update 2025-12-29 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): - The creator is seeking independent confirmation (such as satellite photos) before resolving YES based on Trump's statement about hitting an area in Venezuela.
It remains unclear how the area was "hit" (airstrike vs. other methods) and whether any deaths occurred, both of which are relevant to the resolution criteria.
The creator is not certain an incident actually occurred and requires proper verification before resolution.
Update 2025-12-29 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): - A CIA drone strike on Venezuelan soil counts as an airstrike and would meet the resolution criteria for YES (regardless of death count, as previously established that airstrikes alone are sufficient).
The creator will conduct additional research and/or wait for better third-party reporting before resolving. Resolution may take a day or more to ensure accuracy.
Update 2025-12-30 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): - The creator acknowledges that reported claims (US forces conducting an airstrike on Venezuelan soil) match the YES criteria, but lacks 100% confidence in the validity of the claims.
Sources are primarily Trump or anonymous officials, and the creator notes concerns about reliability.
The creator is soliciting community input on what level of validation is reasonable to expect, given that hard proof (like footage) may never be available or may take a long time to emerge.
The creator is concerned their own political bias may be affecting their assessment of the available information.
Update 2025-12-30 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): - If no further independent reporting emerges to confirm or deny the reported attack, the creator will lean towards resolving YES but will wait longer to allow time for reporting that could debunk the claims.
The creator is seeking community input on what level of validation is reasonable given current information quality (sources being Trump and anonymous officials, with concerns about reliability).
1,000People are also trading
The content of the claims match the YES criteria in that US forces did a type of airstrike on Venezuelan soil. I have not resolved this market YES yet because I lack 100% confidence in the validity of the claims. The sources seem to be all Trump or anonymous officials. Trump is known for anything from communicating in very nebulous terms to outright lying.
That said, I worry that because of the nature of the operation we likely won't get any hard proof like footage (which we are so used to now for everything) about this ever or for a long time. Maybe I just have to accept that we cannot be 100% certain that YES was correct here for a long time but that's still the better option.
Please chime in with opinions on level of validation that's reasonable to expect here! I worry that my own political bias might be reducing my faith in the available information more than is reasonable.
I've been trying to figure out how to use FIRMS to identify where a strike may have occurred, but I am not experienced enough in this to know what I'm doing.
This OSINT tool was touted as a potential method of determining where strikes occurr(ed) during Ukraine-Russia conflict. Apparently, missile strikes test positive for fire detection as measured from orbit!
I'm hoping somebody can do this better than I can.
The content of the claims match the YES criteria in that US forces did a type of airstrike on Venezuelan soil. I have not resolved this market YES yet because I lack 100% confidence in the validity of the claims. The sources seem to be all Trump or anonymous officials. Trump is known for anything from communicating in very nebulous terms to outright lying.
That said, I worry that because of the nature of the operation we likely won't get any hard proof like footage (which we are so used to now for everything) about this ever or for a long time. Maybe I just have to accept that we cannot be 100% certain that YES was correct here for a long time but that's still the better option.
Please chime in with opinions on level of validation that's reasonable to expect here! I worry that my own political bias might be reducing my faith in the available information more than is reasonable.
@AlexanderTheGreater I think it's reasonably unlikely we get footage.
Your comment inspired me to make a market! /realDonaldTrump/will-we-get-footage-of-the-venezuel
@AlexanderTheGreater If there is no further reporting to confirm or deny the attack through independent sources, how would you resolve the market?
@AlexanderTheGreater I’d imagine someone will find it using before/after satellite imagery fairly soon.
@Xizted I think I'd lean towards YES but would wait a little longer to give time for reporting to emerge that could debunk Trump's claims.
I'm honestly looking for opinions though on what would be reasonable to do with the quality of information we have right now.
@AlexanderTheGreater I am obviously biased but that seems like a reasonable take. I still find it hard to believe there will be anything disproving the attack entirely. I was sceptical until the CNN article dropped, but I doubt they would go with the story if there was any possibility they would be wrong. Obviously they were in a win-win situation as both Trump striking Venezuela and Trump lying/hallucinating about an attack would be juicy. At this point only way CNN could lose on this would be picking the wrong story, so I am pretty confident in their reporting.
@AlexanderTheGreater I too am with you on this one.
Disclosure, I have my own stakes on the result of this market. However, if somebody put my life on the line and said I needed to resolve this market with current public information only, the default is probably a YES.
I have been trying to dig for satellite coverage and seeing if I can put the story together myself with before and after photos, but I am not experienced well enough in this art to know what I'm doing.
@AlexanderTheGreater Venezuela acknowledging it in any way is an easy YES (we'll see on that front). It's unlikely in my opinion that CNN and Trump would push the same incorrect story. In the absence of any counter-evidence, I would resolve YES early January.
@AlexanderTheGreater If the President saying the strike happened, isn't sufficient, I dunno what would be
@ChurlishGambit president Trump does not considered to be a credible resource..
But CNN and other credible media reported about that CIA activity in Venezuela
@AlexanderTheGreater As untrustworthy as Trump is, if you can’t trust an announcement by the President backed by reporting by CNN, I’m not sure what you can trust. Would this really be lent any additional weight by OSINT redditors claiming to have identified the location of the strike or something?
@Quroe Okay, do I have to know the reputations of specific redditors here, or what? What if I disagree about the specific evidence put forward, would we be hashing that out in the comments here too? There’s no bottom to this rabbit hole. Caution and due diligence are good and appropriate, but you have to draw a line.
[delete]