Yeah sorry everyone for the poor criteria here. I did not intend there to be a mismatch between the title and criteria, I don’t know if I mistyped or the auto date got it wrong - maybe the issue is that the auto date works off of UTC?

The time zone issue that people have brought up is enough for me to want to reresolve this N/A. @DavidChee can you help me with that?

@BoltonBailey Done!

I think it's correctly resolved because the description clearly mentions the close date, which was on the 14th. You could twist "by '15th'" to mean "before 15th", but the description was clear. That said I don't care and I lost money this way

@jacksonpolack There's a wrinkle I mentioned here: People who are in different timezones can have seen a different close date. Some of them may have seen the close date as June 15 in their local timezone. So for a textualist reading of the market description alone, that may be sufficient for N/A. Personally, I would have resolved N/A on the basis of the several other inconsistencies as well.

I will say, the close date is irrelevant. The close date is simply when trading ends. You may decide to not allow the market to steal the liquidity and thus close the market before the event is known. You may allow trading for a while after if the result is uncertain. Etc.

Close date is irrelevant. I think a fair reading of the question is based on June 15th. If you wish to re-resolve, contact @DavidChee . If not, this is your market and it wasn't fraudulently resolved

@MarcusAbramovitch I agree that the close date is normally irrelevant, but here the close date is relevant purely because the market description specifically referenced it (which I think is generally a bad idea, you should instead just write out the specific date).

Market apparently had close date on the 14th, when the price was 3.15, so this resolves NO.

@BoltonBailey the title said 6-15 so it should have resolved yes...

I traded based on the price on 6/14 as I ignored the title and looked at the close date. (Although I clearly fucked up my ""analysis"")

Some feedback on the question which I think has several wording issues:

• Title says "by" (which means prior dates count) but text says "on" (which means prior dates don't count). They should both be the same.

• References to "the close date" are problematic for many reasons. Far better to state "on 2023-06-15" than "on the close date"

  • People who are in different timezones would have seen a different date. Some of them may have seen the close date as June 15 in their local timezone.

  • Close date can be changed for many reasons, and then it gets super confusing

@jack thanks for chiming in. I'm usually pretty good at spotting wonky resolution criteria but the problem here was not just misleading criteria. If the title was meaningless, as he suggests, and the description was the only thing of value, then it should have still resolved as YES. The reason being, that the transaction fee chart linked in the description as the source of resolution data doesn't update for about a day so "on market close" on 23-06-14 the information displayed in that chart "showed" data for 23-06-13 with a transaction value of 2.359.

@marnet Personally I think that's a much less likely interpretation than reading the data point on the chart labelled with the date.

I tried to find some up-to-date data, and my initial shitty analysis (started at 8 minutes to close) (adding up per-block fees javascripted from a webpage) said fees were increasing, so I sold most of my YES that I guessed from the chart, but I did a slightly less shitty analysis (adding up fees/transaction count/block) said fees were decreasing over the past day so I tabbed back in to rebuy, but just missed it lol. not expecting 8 minutes of investigation to be that accurate anyway.