Edit 26/2/24: The Hungarian parliament has finally voted to allow Sweden to join NATO but this still needs to be ratified by the Hungarian President, and that position is currently vacant. Orban could delay the naming of a new president precisely to prevent Sweden from joining, and for this reason this market is not resolved just yet
Hungary could let Sweden join NATO at any time, and they are being pressured to finally relent
Clarification: This market will resolve as "yes" if, by the end of February, the Hungarian government doesn't prevent Sweden from joining NATO in any way
If, on the contrary, by the end of February the Hungarian government is still blocking Sweden from joining NATO in any way, it will resolve as "no"
This means that even if they vote to allow Sweden into the alliance but they still manage block it in some other way, it will resolve as "no"
@CourierSix Yes, N/A is equivalent to rolling back all trades that happened on the market, not just returning currently invested mana.
Alright folks, the creator has been emailed but never responded. Per the moderation guidelines for what to do when a market is abandoned by the creator, I convened a council of three mods and asked them how they would resolve this market. One voted for No, two voted for N/A. Therefore, this market will resolve N/A .
We messed up here as mods in ever letting this situation get this far. We should have done something about this ambiguity sooner, either requiring the creator to make exact resolution criteria clear or else we should have unlisted the market and directed people to trade on better constructed markets.
In the future, we intend to put more effort into making sure the criteria for serious markets are clear and reasonable, so you can bet without worrying about creator risk and create markets without becoming the center of drama.
Thank you for your attention to this matter!
On Discord, mod team members have questioned their commitment to this statement. There was at least one point in time, after the statement was posted, where this seemed not to be the consensus among the mods.
@BrunoParga The key clarification I wanted to add is if traders see this kind of ambiguity/trader disagreements forming, make sure to ping a couple mods and let them know how time-sensitive the market is. It's easier to respond to crises as they arise than to monitor hundreds of markets for new edge cases arising.
@Emanuele98 I still do not see the profit (or rather, non-loss) in the league. Does that mean it will not be given, despite the loss being counted in February causing me to be moved back one league and losing the 800 Mana I would have won (and will lose more probably this month, being one league down)?
@Emanuele98 Even if this question would have resolved to YES now, it still wouldn't have helped you in leagues. Your demotion in leagues were based on the state of the world at that time, and for this month's league whatever you betted on in February doesn't help.
None of the moderators were leaning toward a YES, it was all N/A or NO, so you should take the mana you got back and run :) Best of luck to get promoted this month again!
@HenriThunberg Except that the problem with this market was the resolution after a week when it was supposed to be resolved on March 1, but as said, you have to notify the mods right away, as early as the 27th, but now it's late, that's not what I asked for.
EDIT: Maybe I don't understand how the league works, if the market had been open in March, and returned to 90%, still the "profit" would not be considered in March? Doesn't that depend on the market being cancelled?
@Emanuele98 I read now, really only bets placed in the month are counted. If on March 30 I place a bet for Yes at 10%, on the 31st it drops to 1% and on March 2 it increases to 99%, not only do I get no profit in the league despite the huge gain, I even get a loss in February and that's it. Will all bets for the Oscars then not count in March if made in February?
What is the point of these crazy rules? To drive users away by getting them into a huge bureaucracy with loopholes? So only short-term bets count in the leagues, or at any rate only those that have a short-term (or very short-term, if I bet on the 25th it has to change within a week...) probability change.
I believe the confusion here stems from lack of knowledge rather than the ambigiuity of the rules. Most yes buyers probably thought that accession was a done deal after the Hungarian parliamentary approval (also some media portrayed it as such). Same thing happened on polymarket where one account bought up the all yes shares up to 100c. If we had the presidential assent by the end of February, yes side might have had a case (i would still lean on no in such scenorio). But as it stands,there is no reasonable argument for a yes resolution. Ratification has two compenents and only one compenent was satisfied by the expiry date. Please note that Swedish foreign minister scheduled a flight last thursday or so to washington after the hungarian parlimentary approval, they too werent expecting a delay but it happened. They cancelled the flight because hungary didnt honor its part yet. As you can see from the developments this week, Sweden is very enthusiastic about joining nato and doesnt want to waste even a day, if they had the chance they would have become a member last week.
@gmbleawy Except that it is not clear what the Hungarian president has to do with the Hungarian government, the Hungarian president signed on the first day, it is the first thing he ever signed.
@Emanuele98 If you want to distguinshin between the state and the government, let me tell you another fact. The bill didn’t even reach the president’s table until March. It was stuck in the parliament. You can even make the argument that the parliamentary approval wasnt satisfied in February
@gmbleawy It is the first thing Hungary's president signed on his first day, which was eight days after his election. Also the last time it was 8 days between the election and the presidency actually.
@Emanuele98 What does it have to do with this market? Yeah I feel sorry that the change of office coincided with the ratification but you should have factored that into your bet.
@gmbleawy , this doesn't quite follow. The question doesn't ask whether Sweden would join by the end of Feb, merely whether Hungary would allow them to. The Hungarian government clearly removed such political impediments as were in the way, leaving only institutional activity and timing, the "boiler plate", if you will. Hungary was no longer actively acting as a brake on the process.. This is a "yes".
@BernardGuerrero This is getting annoying. This market was not about rhetoric. It is about concrete procedural steps. Orban declared his support on accession days ago before the parliamentary approval.
@gmbleawy for the record, when I bought into ny position, I fully expected there to be a high chance of the process not being done in February. I bet YES because based on the description, the most logical interpretation seemed to be that this is about the removal of blockers, not accession (as the creator has reiterated)
@Shump I m not saying its about accession. It was hungary completing the necessary steps so sweden could join as a member. If you check the previous cases, the gap between all members ratifiying and the invitee depositing its accession might take days or even weeks. In sweden’s case, the gap was mere hours. This is a blatantly wrong resolution and it is due to lack of knowledge about the process gg. I made a large profit in trading the nato markets but never thought this might have resolved any other way. Congrats guys you messed this up!
Today Hungary will finally let Sweden join Nato! And most probably accession will be complete today. Sweden was waiting Hungary to complete its process. So simple but somehow very complicated here. This market was not about Hungarian parliamentary approval. The Title, rule description and creator’s comments all support this. I personally asked for a clarification from the creator before betting on this (also before hungary passed the ratification or put on its agenda) and the answer was Hungary needs fully complete its part (parliament approval + presidential assent + deposit of documents). Any resolution other than no is wrong.
Tomorrow Hungary will deposit and Sweden will deposit after, I don't know immediately after or as soon as it is possible.
Everything as it was predictable as early as 9-12 days ago, there is no possible delay, apart from the interim president, but it depends on a scandal about the pardon granted to a pedophile, nothing that could have anything to do with Sweden, NATO or the Hungarian government. Even it is possible that the whole thing was extended by a couple of days, with the filing tomorrow and not immediately yesterday, because the Swedish prime minister simply could not travel to the U.S. first...
___________________________________________________________________
https://www.reuters.com/world/swedish-pm-travels-us-nato-accession-nears-2024-03-06/
Swedish PM Travels to US as NATO Accession Nears
COPENHAGEN/STOCKHOLM (Reuters) - Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson and Foreign Minister Tobias Billstrom will travel to Washington on Wednesday, the government said, where they are expected to complete the process of joining NATO.
Sweden will immediately become NATO's 32nd member when it deposits the formal documentation, marking an end to 200 years during which Stockholm avoided military alliances and adopted a neutral stance in times of war.
Hungary is expected to hand over the last documents to the U.S. administration on Thursday, Swedish news agency TT said, without giving any sources.
One thing that I didn't comment before (which was bad of me).
Media reports are really bad on this. Journalists are hard-working people doing their best; but given their constraints of time, article word count, resources and just the impossibility of getting properly informed about everything they need to write about, they often fail to capture important nuances.
The big majority of outlets who reported Hungary letting Sweden join as a done deal were all wrong.
I've been asked to be one of the mods assigned to resolve this in the absence of the creator. I've read the top sorted comments but not the whole 300+
My understanding here is that:
the creator nowhere disambiguated between "blocking" in the sense of a deliberate action requiring intent, and "blocking" in the sense of being an obstruction?
disambiguated a lot of edge cases, but not the really important edge case of the decision being made but the paperwork taking a while to be filed.
(The Feb 26th clarification can be read multiple ways so doesn't really clear up either)
Is that all correct?
@MichaelWheatley as someone who did not bet in this market, this seems like the correct course of action
@MichaelWheatley I don't think your summary is entirely correct. One of the YES proponents thinks what made this be YES was the PMs meeting, the other thinks it was the vote. Confused as it is, the 2/26 edit is clear about one thing at least: the market did not resolve YES due to either of those things. Whatever the creator meant by "blocking", the creator clearly spelled out in the edit that Presidential assent was needed to "unblock". That didn't happen in February.
I don't think there are valid cases for both sides, since the YES case directly contradicts both the 2/26 edit and everything the creator said (that what matters is when Hungary lets Sweden join, and that hasn't happened yet), so I don't think this needs N/A. At one point the creator said he'd only resolve YES when Sweden actually joined, which makes it clear that the reasons for Hungarian deposit of ratification delay are immaterial.
At one point the creator said he'd only resolve YES when Sweden actually joined,
Where was this?
@BrunoParga If the edit had just said "I'm not resolving yet because permission may not be official until after the start of March" that would have simplified things, but because he specifically described a scenario in which Sweden was still being deliberately blocked, it's more abiguous.
@BrunoParga > Whatever the creator meant by "blocking", the creator clearly spelled out in the edit that Presidential assent was needed to "unblock".
Orban could delay the naming of a new president precisely to prevent Sweden from joining, and for this reason this market is not resolved just yet
Orban (or rather, his party) voted in the new president on the same day as the vote on Sweden, Feb. 26, and he took office the following Tuesday, so after 8 days and immediately signed on. The last time there was after 8 days, May 2-10, 2012. Orban has not delayed anything.
@MichaelWheatley >"At one point the creator said he'd only resolve YES when Sweden actually joined,
Where was this?"
20 Feb 19:43 utc
Gaz Downright 15d
@FernandoFrancoFelix At what point will you resolve the market; when the Hungarian parliament votes YES to add Sweden to NATO?
18 replies
@GazDownright When Sweden joins NATO or February ends, whatever happens first
Note that this is about ***When*** the market resolves not what resolution occurs. Thus I see this as replying to when. IOW If Sweden joined 20 Feb wouldn't need to wait until end of Feb as we would have the info needed to resolve this market when Sweden joined. If Sweden didn't join until Dec, no need to wait until Sweden joins to resolve we would have the info to resolve no shortly after end of February. Hence the formulation of either a or b whatever happens first.
To me this suggests that a ratification document being filed with US state department is not enough to resolve the question, as the deposited document could be invalid in some way as a stalling tactic. So rather than resolve soon after ratification document deposited we should wait to see if it is valid which we probably don't get to find out until Sweden actually joins.
Hence this answer does seem to imply an interpretation of blocking that could occur as late as the date of the ratification document being deposited.
So perhaps not very clear but I would suggest this as showing that the following statement you made is at least potentially incorrect:
"the creator nowhere disambiguated between "blocking" in the sense of a deliberate action requiring intent, and "blocking" in the sense of being an obstruction?"
The creator certainly is specific that it isn't when the vote is held but later. The two people calling for yes want it to be resolved due to vote or an earlier PM meeting and this exchange clearly indicates the creator saying no it is later.
Nothing else happened after the vote and before the deadline, so whatever the creator was thinking needed to happen after the vote to allow claim to be resolved didn't happen. So this market should resolve no as an extra needed thing for yes didn't happen.
@ChristopherRandles "To me this suggests that a ratification document being filed with US state department is not enough to resolve the question, as the deposited document could be invalid in some way as a stalling tactic"
No such thing happened, and the fact that you want evidence like this to establish that no impediment occurred in February does not prove the existence of an impediment in February.
"Will I insert an apple into a safe before the end of February?" does not resolve NO because the opening of the safe to check the apple occurred in March.
@Emanuele98 The creator clearly disagreed that the vote was sufficient he said no it is this later date. Nothing else happened by the deadline. If the vote or earlier action was sufficient he would have said yes or given an earlier date.
This is like evidence the apple was never in the safe so the question resolves no.
@ChristopherRandles The creator hypothesized something that did not then happen, how should this be in favor of NO?
"Orban could delay the naming of a new president precisely to prevent Sweden from joining, and for this reason this market is not resolved just yet"
@ChristopherRandles According to you, "at the end of 2024, the U.S. Congress will continue to block the inauguration of the President-elect of the United States in any way" is something that would be resolved by a YES , because the "Electoral College vote count" will take place in January?
@Emanuele98 "at the end of 2024, the U.S. Congress will continue to block the inauguration of the President-elect of the United States in any way"
I think this wrongly presupposes US Congress is blocking inauguration as opposed to there just being more things to do.
@MichaelWheatley
Re "the creator nowhere disambiguated between "blocking" in the sense of a deliberate action requiring intent, and "blocking" in the sense of being an obstruction?"
I think the question title is specifying that Hungary is blocking Sweden at time of question creation. The only way they are doing this is by not having filed the ratification document. Therefore to stop blocking for a yes judgement they have to actually get the ratification document deposited by the deadline. This hasn't happened so the question resolves no.
@ChristopherRandles Exactly, the signature of the President of the Assembly, the signature of the President of Hungary, the deposit, are "more things to do", not a "still blocking".
@ChristopherRandles "The only way they are doing this is by not having filed the ratification document"
But if that was the only way in which it makes sense to talk about a "blocking", why did the newspapers report that the obstacle was eliminated first with the agreement between Hungary and Sweden and then with the parliamentary vote? Evidently the "blocking" consisted of something else...
@Emanuele98 If the deposit, is in "more things to do" category, not a "still blocking" then the question title would be wrong to imply Hungary is blocking Sweden from joining at the time of market creation. I am saying it is your example that is just not an equivalent situation.