I will not bet on this market.
Please feel free to add your own prop bets to the market. Questions may be broad (Nuclear Weapon used in aggression) or specific (Trump's June 22, 2025 Cease-fire declaration is not violated for at least 7 days), but should have clear resolution criteria.
This is a market for prop bets related to any and all military/political conflicts worldwide from 2025 through the end of 2027.
I will do my best to quickly resolve questions correctly in a timely fashion. I tend to pay attention to international news.
All questions, unless specifying a date, must be assumed to have "by midnight UTC ±0 on 31 Dec 2027" as part of their resolution criteria.
I will default to the question creator's resolution criteria when necessary.
To assist in correct and timely resolutions, I encourage traders to post news articles/sources supporting a resolution.
I will edit/remove AI updates that are incorrect and put them under a header for the specific question they pertain to. If an AI update is placed under a question header, it is safe to assume it correctly reflects question resolution
Jordan becomes a signatory of the Abraham Accords
Update 2025-06-25 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): This answer will resolve to YES only if Jordan becomes a signatory of the specific treaty known as the 'Abraham Accords'. Jordan is not currently a signatory.
1+ deaths attributed to a rogue AI
Update 2025-06-26 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): In response to a question about whether a suicide linked to a chatbot would count for a hypothetical prop bet, the creator specified their resolution criteria:
There must be a direct correlation between the AI's actions and the death.
The AI must be behaving like a rogue AI (maliciously, unpredictably, or contrary to its programming). An AI acting as it was designed would not meet this bar.
Cambodia - Thailand Border Clash ends in ceasefire before October 1, 2025
Update 2025-07-28 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): For the prop bet concerning a ceasefire between Thailand and Cambodia, the creator has specified the resolution criteria:
This will resolve to YES if the current ceasefire lasts for 7 days.
Market Start Date
Update 2025-08-07 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The market covers conflicts from June 25, 2025 through the end of 2027.
Yahya Sinwar is formally charged and tried for war crimes by an international tribunal or court with recognized jurisdiction (e.g., ICC)
The creator initially planned to resolve this to NO because Yahya Sinwar is dead and posthumous trials are extremely rare (last known example being Nuremberg Trials)
However, the creator has agreed that if a posthumous prosecution is initiated, the market can be re-resolved by moderators
This means the market may initially resolve NO but could be changed to YES later if posthumous proceedings occur
Humans will extinct
Update 2026-01-21 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The "Humans will extinct" answer will NOT be resolved N/A. The creator has been convinced that this question has value and is resolvable as worded, and will keep it open on the market.
1,000People are also trading
@traders I want to clarify why I have edited this from "India's 2026 Defence Budget exceeds ₹7.5 lakh crore" to "India's 2026-2027 Defence Budget exceeds ₹7.5 lakh crore".
The intention for this question is for the upcoming 2026 year budget and I wanted to make that more clear, as India's defense budgets are for a fiscal year that does not lie completely within a single calender year. The 2025-2026 budget did not exceed 7.5 lakh crore, and I assume that traders understand this, but I also did not want anyone to potentially feel cheated on this. I also did not want to "stealth" edit a question that has had a trade on it without being transparent as to why I had done so. There is only one trader on this question and they hold a YES position, so my assumption is that this person understood what this question's intent was. If @Brierbr would like to sell their position based on this clarification I will refund them any lost Mana.
Thank you for your attention to this matter!
@Hida what's the story here? I'm going to N/A this as it's nonsense and doesn't pertain in any way to this market. It also has no resolution criteria.
@traders I am planning to resolve "Humans will extinct" as N/A since it eats liquidity and there is no situation in which I could resolve it as YES, as I am a human and would be dead and no one would be left to resolve it YES. I know there are some unlikely events on this market, but this one stands out as completely unresolvable to anything but NO, making it a "leech" on liquidity.
I will allow 48 hours for counter-arguments before resolving it as N/A.
@BlackCrusade Is the point prediction, or moving play money around? If you think it's unlikely, bet it down. Resolving it N/A reduces information
@ChurlishGambit it's less a matter of likelihood and more a matter of resolvability. Logically, there is only one way that this question could resolve, as it would not be possible for me to truthfully resolve to a YES.
I also do not think that my stance on it being a liquidity leech necessarily implies that my focus is on moving play money around. Since this question has no possibility of resolving in any manner other than NO, and it uses liquidity by staying on the market, it follows (to me) that it eats the liquidity of other questions on the market resulting in a situation where predictions are less accurate by allowing less Mana to influence the position on each other question more than if the question wasn't using liquidity, thus lowering the stakes required to influence the market.
Let me know what you think.
@ChurlishGambit What information is gained by having a question which has no ability to be resolved correctly in half of the possible outcomes?
@BlackCrusade The point of prediction markets isn't to only capture likely information, & "correct resolution" is irrelevant. Knowing that even some people anticipate extinction, is useful information for correct knowledge of the future.
@ChurlishGambit okay. That's a valid point. I can understand your reasoning for being against a N/A resolution. What would you think if I put it to a vote?
@BlackCrusade If you want to do it, regardless of argumentation, then have the courage to do it. Don't try to weasel out, you know? This is a great example of why futarchy doesn't work lol
@ChurlishGambit if we were properly practicing Futarchy, wouldn't the correct way to resolve this be via a market?
@BlackCrusade No, because this shouldn't be a debate at all. We should be assessing all outcomes. But the problem with futarchy, is people are running the markets & making choices like these. They're not really "prediction" markets, they don't have much predictive utility, & the information is so imperfect that they lack much other utility either. It's all just gambling with a thin & chipping coat of "rationality."
@ChurlishGambit so by that logic, wouldn't there be no issue with resolving this question to N/A since it doesn't serve the purpose of gambling?
@BlackCrusade If you want to say "futarchy is a failure & prediction markets are bullshit," by all means, N/A away, I won't argue
@ChurlishGambit I will admit I am very highly skeptical of the value of Futarchy. I'd put it's possibility of being valuable at maybe a 20% chance 😉
@BlackCrusade I'd also point out though—humans don't have to be extinct for this to resolve YES. If the remaining people alive know they are doomed not to procreate—some sort of mass-sterilization radiation event, or disease—then it could be resolved YES.
@ChurlishGambit you know. I hadn't thought of the specific wording of this, "will" is doing a lot of work in this question. To your point, I think it could be interpreted as you're saying if you actually think about the wording.
I would love to get @LiBrandon's take on what he meant when he added the question.
@traders After @ChurlishGambit's challenge on the N/A, I have been convinced that there is value in keeping this question open and not resolving it N/A. He presented a sound argument for why it is in fact resolvable as worded.