This market resolves YES if:
An armistice, ceasefire, or negotiated settlement is announced by both Ukraine and Russia regarding the ongoing war in Ukraine at any point between the Associated Press calling the election for Donald Trump, and April 19, 2025, 11:59 PM ET.
To count toward the resolution of this market, an armistice, ceasefire, and/or negotiated settlement must be indicative of at least the temporary end of the Ukraine-Russia military conflict, must pertain to all theaters of military conflict between the two countries, and be declared through official channels by both countries. The specific date that such an agreement will take effect is not relevant to the resolution of this market. The only requirement is that the agreement must be announced within this market's specified timeframe.
To count toward the resolution of this market, an armistice, ceasefire, and/or negotiated settlement must be indicative of at least the temporary end of the Ukraine-Russia military conflict, must pertain to all theaters of military conflict between the two countries, and be declared through official channels by both countries.
See also Polymarket's market.
See also:
1,000
3.00Interesting read and (imo) compelling argument.
@VilgotHuhn in an earlier comment i said:
> it could be that the war ends tomorrow because they know if they keep it up it'll be worse for everyone once trump gets inaugurated, for all i know.
I am ambivalent about whether that is the case or not, but the idea is that if the war ended in a week, there would plausibly be reasonable suspicion of a connection to the US election or wtv
Two reasons why it seems unlikely:
Trump’s reported plan (threaten Ukraine with withdrawing aid, threaten Russia with increasing aid) has an obvious issue. What happens when both parties refuse to negotiate?
If Putin insists on Ukrainian non-membership in NATO, how can it be guaranteed? Any deal he makes with Trump can be walked back by the next president.
@astroblob Yea good point. hihgly unlikely for ukraine to agree to something that quick as it is going to require some concessions. They'll prob need time to frame those concessions as a win.
That Trump doesn‘t have to be involved at all makes the question/name of the market misleading. That’s not what that question means in common language.
“Will Trump end…“ strongly implies causation, at least to some definite & not easily deniable amount.
Maybe either modify the resolution criteria (“war ends in the first 90 days of him assuming office“) or the title (“Will the war end before Trump‘s first 90 days in office are over“) ?
That you would resolve YES even if the war ends tomorrow and everybody (including you) agrees that Trump had nothing to do with it makes it obviously confusing & markets shouldn‘t have clearly confusing/misleading titles.
if someone reads the ambiguous title and bets, knowing it’s ambiguous instead of reading the description, they knowingly took a risk. I think the other phrasing would gain a bit in obviousness but people are more interested in a market if it’s framed in terms of being close in time to trump’s inauguration, so it’s a tradeoff. You’re welcome to create a similar market with a clearer title though, sorry
@Bayesian My point is that this is not ambiguous. It's clear language but communicates the wrong idea. (That's what I meant by “confusing“, the title and resolution criteria are in conflict.)
Your reply presupposes that it is ambiguous and that therefore traders should know to be cautious. This is what I'm disagreeing with.
@JonathanMannhart I added [see description]. would that help? like "will trump end the war" idk how we would establish a causal link or the absence of one, so i wouldn't make a market based on whether trump had a causal link to it. it could be that the war ends tomorrow because they know if they keep it up it'll be worse for everyone once trump gets inaugurated, for all i know. I think Polymarket's market was reasonable, but yeah now people know to read the description to not bet mistakenly? do you disagree
It's Russia's invasion of Ukraine, not the "Ukraine war". And the way for it to end is for Russia to stop invading.
@Lorelai my preferred way of and end is for Russia to get kicked out and Putin gets gaddhafied. However, Ukraine conceding all or large parts of its territory and making other unreasonable concessions like disarming, is also a way this can end.
@Enlil "all" seems unlikely and I get the impression arms production is amping up. Disarming is surrender and Ukrainians won't be doing that either.
@Lorelai Fair, I just used Polymarket's phrasing, and as long as people know what it's referring to I don't mind either way
@Bayesian it's actually important because the implicit responsibility in how you wrote it lies with Ukraine, when Russia invaded. It's Russia's war. It doesn't matter that you personally don't mind, it's about doing the right thing.
@Lorelai Why would writing it like this give implicit responsibility to russia? It’s surely overwhelmingly obvious russia has the responsibility
@Bayesian words are important, not everyone might be as clear as you are on where responsibility lies as russian propaganda is everywhere
https://manifold.markets/Lorelai/will-manifold-users-start-referring
@Lorelai we can make a poll here on who people think is more responsible for the war in ukraine between russia and ukraine. Im willing to make bets about it in advance, about for example the ratio of people who vote on russia being more responsible being higher than 75%, or stuff like that. if you disagree about that epistemically that's great and we can figure out who's right, but if we agree on the epistemics but you think we should cater to the few % of people who are dumb, I would personally disagree
@Lorelai like it or not, "Ukraine war" seems to be the term that's been commonly adopted. It also makes sense since "Russian war" could refer to the Russian-Chechen war or Russian-Georgian war as well.
@Lorelai as I said this seems to be the standard term that the media has settled on. You are yelling at clouds