1,000
3.00🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ646 | |
| 2 | Ṁ610 | |
| 3 | Ṁ610 | |
| 4 | Ṁ443 | |
| 5 | Ṁ385 |
@mods creator banned. I'm assuming even though they didn't hold a "vote", the absence of any objection will act as a "vote" and make all active senators resolve yes? pls let me know if your view is diff
@Riley12 If you can confirm that all the ones trading at 1% have resigned or not been re-elected, I will resolve everything else Yes.
@Eliza And also that the ones trading at 95% were actually physically present in the room?
It doesn't look like there is even a 'vote', was there?
It looks like most of these senators would not have 'voted to certify' anything, since that is done at the state level. But I have a feeling this is not what the question is meant to ask....
The joint session is often referred to colloquially as “certifying” the presidential election. More
precisely, the joint session is where the electoral votes from each state are verified and counted.
Certification of the votes of the electors—meaning, authentication of the results of the
presidential election administered separately by each state—happens at the state level, as required
by the Twelfth Amendment.
@Eliza I reviewed the document....comparing that to the question title here, it seems like people were actually betting on "Will these people make an objection to the counting of the certified results".
It looks like there were no objections at all. All the Senators who were still Senators should resolve Yes and the others No?
@BTE Well I've been putting off looking up everything I need to for correcting this market and it seemed like I could kill two bets with one stone, yes 😅
@BTE Do the retiring people all go to 0% for sure? I wasn't certain about that part but I believe that is the case.
@Mobium I realized this immediately after creating it so treat anyone who won’t be there on January 6 as a NO.