This market is intended to capture the real-world duration of the war in practice, not to hinge on technicalities or isolated edge cases. Resolution will be guided by the overall state of the conflict as commonly understood, rather than strict literal interpretation of every individual event.
The market resolves to the number of whole weeks of active military conflict between the United States and Iran, measured from February 27 (February 28 local time). For simplicity, week boundaries are counted at Friday midnights, Pacific Time. Resolution dates are listed for each category.
Resolution is based on major news outlets such as CNN, Al Jazeera, AP, and Reuters, along with official statements. The conflict is considered ongoing while coordinated strikes, missile or drone attacks, or other significant combat operations continue. It ends when a ceasefire is reached that lasts for 4 continuous weeks, or US and Iran declare any other type of halt to hostilities that lasts for 4 continuous weeks.
Update 2026-03-07 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Regarding the 4-week cessation of hostilities clause:
The resolution week count is measured up until the start of the ceasefire/cessation period (not the end)
If a ceasefire/cessation begins but fails before 4 weeks pass, the time from that failed cessation will be added back to the total conflict duration
Update 2026-03-15 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Regarding resolution when the US withdraws without a formal ceasefire:
This market tracks direct military actions between the US and Iran only (proxy actions by militias or other groups do not count)
If direct operations cease without a formal ceasefire (e.g. US withdraws), the conflict is considered ended once no direct US–Iran military actions occur for 4 continuous weeks
The end date may be determined retrospectively once it is clear hostilities have not resumed
In ambiguous cases (sporadic incidents, unclear attribution, prolonged lull), resolution will rely on consistent reporting from major outlets (Reuters, AP, BBC, CNN, Al Jazeera)
The standard for ongoing conflict is observable offensive combat operations between the US and Iran
Update 2026-04-07 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The 4-week cessation condition applies to both a ceasefire and a declared halt to hostilities — not just the latter.
Update 2026-04-07 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Resolution does not depend on who exactly declares what or any specific technical definition. The market resolves based on whether the war between the US and Iran has actually ended in practice, as reflected by consistent reporting from major outlets (Reuters, AP, BBC, CNN, Al Jazeera) broadly agreeing that the conflict has effectively ended.
Update 2026-04-09 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): If the conflict transforms into a civil war in Iran where the US is no longer directly engaged in combat against Iran (e.g. US only provides weapons/intelligence support), the US–Iran war is considered ended. The consistent reporting clause applies if ambiguity arises.
Update 2026-05-04 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The ceasefire start time is determined by the timestamp of Trump's initial Truth Social post announcing the ceasefire.
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Trader | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ49,835 | |
| 2 | Ṁ18,011 | |
| 3 | Ṁ16,214 | |
| 4 | Ṁ14,171 | |
| 5 | Ṁ5,187 |
People are also trading
This is all over the place unfortunately. Title refers to how long the war will last, but resolution has been based on a ceasefire which is not the same thing.
It first states "The market resolves to the number of whole weeks of active military conflict between the United States and Iran" - 'active' is subjective, but there has been consistent reporting of ongoing events within the Strait.
But then it states "It ends when a ceasefire is reached that lasts for 4 continuous weeks, or US and Iran declare any other type of halt to hostilities that lasts for 4 continuous weeks." - this opposes the previous comment above and now provides two different options to resolve the market.
A number of the updates/comments I think make this even messier:
"The market resolves based on whether the war between the US and Iran has actually ended in practice, as reflected by consistent reporting from major outlets" - So not a ceasefire? 'In practice' the war is still ongoing, the Strait is subject to a blockade, there has also been missiles fired & intercepted.
"If direct operations cease without a formal ceasefire (e.g. US withdraws), the conflict is considered ended once no direct US–Iran military actions occur for 4 continuous weeks" - again unclear as you are now creating more scenarios for resolution rather than clarifying existing ones. Also indicating with this comment that an end to the war constitutes more that just the presence of a ceasefire.
Good job I'm not spending real money! :D
If you think the ceasefire will break, I made a market here on how many weeks it will hold. I am just going to go by this Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Iran_war_ceasefire to determine if and when it breaks.
@GazDownright are you kidding? There were attacks breaking the ceasefire in the last 48 hours, multiple in fact.
@GazDownright US and Iran launch new attacks as they wrestle for control of Gulf waters
@GazDownright U.S. carries out strikes on Iranian territory there goes the ceasefire lol https://www.nbcnews.com/world/iran/us-iran-strikes-rcna344144
Clearly, the war hasn’t stopped. I think the natural answer to the headline title of this market is ‘it hasn’t stopped yet’.
It seems ironic that the market creator intended for resolution “not to hinge on technicalities” but if this resolves at only 4 weeks then that will be exactly what has happened.
@lostmyhippo I think you should take some time to consider the other side of this and how prediction markets often fail due to a lack of clarity in exactly what is being predicted.
This market has had a clear set of criteria from the start and a creator who has been steadfast about the interpretation of that criteria while answering user questions. I've been very impressed with how well this market progressed.
Choosing four weeks as a proxy for the length of a break in the action was a really good choice because it's short enough that traders don't feel like their mana will be locked up 'forever' waiting for some kind of indefinite lockup period. Just choosing a longer period of time (even up to a year!) is subject to the exact same complaints you're making right now. A shorter period like 3 days or 2 weeks means people are more betting on weird edge cases that result in small breaks that are not meaningful.
FWIW, if the fighting resumes in the near future, I'd totally put some liquidity in for the exact same market again.
@Eliza yeah that’s fair, and I got that they tried to set clear criteria up front - which is commendable. I just thought it was ironic because the ‘letter of the law’ is likely to give a different answer than the ‘spirit’, and the creator had intended for that not to happen. I appreciate there’s no perfect answer to this kind of conundrum though.
@lostmyhippo Yeah, I agree here. The creator is certainly keeping to the resolution criteria of the market, and I wouldn't want them to do otherwise, but it's unfortunate that the resolution criteria clearly don't match up with the reality of the war going on. That's especially true when the market was also stated to be "intended to capture the real-world duration of the war in practice, not to hinge on technicalities or isolated edge cases" - and instead we are resolving based on the technicalities.
But it's really hard to make and run markets like this, and Gaz did the best they could.
@Gabrielle I don't feel like this is an edge case at all. The entire situation of the war has completely changed over the last four weeks compared to the weeks before that. Regardless of what happens next, this market did predict something.
@Eliza Hmm, I really disagree - because the answer to the title "How many weeks will the US-Iran war last" is that we still don't know because the war is ongoing. It's true that the situation changed, and we're in a ceasefire now, but the whole point of the term "ceasefire" is that the war is still happening!
@Eliza This is more product feedback than anything else, but for someone like me who takes a ton of small positions and can't monitor every discussion thread to see if things are moving in the direction of resolving on a technicality, it doesn't help much that the creator of the market communicated well. Bad experience and I'm not sure how to make it better other than just not take a lot of small positions.
@WilliamGunn I think this is kind of an unavoidable issue across prediction markets in general. A lot of the time, traders end up pricing not just the “spirit” of the question, but also the exact resolution criteria and technicalities behind it.
For example, the “US boots on the ground” market was widely interpreted as “Will the US invade Iran?”, but it technically counted a rescue mission as boots on the ground. Same thing with some government shutdown markets resolving NO because a specific OPM update never happened for the DHS shutdown, even though most people would’ve considered it a shutdown in practice.
At the end of the day, there’s really no perfect solution besides reading the rules carefully, asking for clarification when needed, and understanding how the market is likely to resolve mechanically rather than intuitively.
@WilliamGunn practice, for the most part. I also have many small positions (several thousands over the course of my time here). many will resolve in weird ways; the coin seems to land on the edge quite more frequently than any of us would have expected. reading descriptions, learning to see the nuances and edge cases, asking for clarifications, and rolling with the punches are all par for the course. bet sizing is also key. you can approach your target and invest more in robust markets while putting less in those that you can smell the unreliability in. but it's tough to do right with wildly variable liquidity and market activity.
@Mochi yeah, I guess some people approach it from a "rules lawyering" point of view, but I personally don't like that and if they think they found some clever technicality in a market I've created that they can exploit, they will be surprised when I stick to reasonableness. I just wish there was a way to know who's going to take which approach.
@WilliamGunn Hear me out:
"Hey Claude, judge this market. [paste link]. Does this market creator have a history of resolving markets by vibe, or by technicality? Please review other resolved markets this creator has made to come to your conclusion."
While it’s hardly ideal to call it now, we do have a ceasefire that has lasted 4 weeks in practice, satisfying one of the main resolution criteria. I will allow a ~24-hour window before resolving to account for any late or clarifying reporting.
I won’t reopen betting during this period, as it would effectively just be betting on my interpretation rather than on new information, which would be unfair.
@GazDownright Surely it would betting on whether news of things that happened pre deadline get reported post deadline?
@archvenison That’s fair, but the purpose of the ~24h buffer is to allow reporting to catch up. I’m not reopening betting during this period, this is just to ensure resolution isn't rushed.
Edit: See Mochi's objection below. I retract this challenge.
———
@GazDownright I'm afraid you might have some homework to review -- I think this might count as clarifying reporting. Here is an aggregator, originating article (paywalled), and a likely syndication of that originating article.
Ground News aggregator:
Originating WaPo article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2026/05/06/iran-us-bases-satellite-images/
ADN syndication article: https://www.adn.com/nation-world/2026/05/06/iran-has-hit-far-more-us-military-assets-than-reported-satellite-images-show/
@Quroe I just wouldn't resolve the market until the war is actually declared over. Ending of a war and 1 month ceasefire (with many violations) are 2 different things.
@GazDownright Yet another market closed on a technicality rather than the actual question. I wish there was some way of knowing before taking a position that someone would resolve on technicalities rather than the question itself. You did communicate, no knock on you for that, but for someone like me who takes a ton of small positions and can't monitor every discussion thread to see if things are moving in the direction of resolving on a technicality, it doesn't help much.
@WilliamGunn What information would help you best make such informed decisions? (I'm genuinely asking; this isn't an attack.)
@Quroe I don't know. I feel like there is a philosophical difference between people who think the intent is what matters vs people who think the specific wording rules the decision, even if things weren't very clear.
I'm just trying to remember who takes what approach and factor that in, which means mostly just not taking positions in otherwise good markets due to the need to monitor for technicalities and "clarifications", but maybe a badge or something (reasonableness vs rules?) would help?
@WilliamGunn for sure. many of us prefer "spirit of the market" but we still have to write rules and sometimes as creators we get caught by them in dissatisfying ways. I'm always in favor of more badges haha
@WilliamGunn That’s a fair criticism. The challenge here has been balancing the spirit of the market with criteria that are objective enough to be applied consistently and fairly, without shifting the goalposts after people have already taken positions.
In hindsight, I could have been even more precise in how the criteria were written, though that may have introduced other issues. I’ll take that as a lesson going forward.
Apologies to anyone who felt misled by how this resolved.
@Gabrielle lol that will still annoy people (perhaps even more). no resolution criteria is like a big blaring alarm to traders
@GazDownright No, I think trying to be even more precise is not going to help. Adding more and more details to a map so that it better reflects the territory makes the map less useful after a certain point. The only way around the situation we find ourselves in here resolving a question yes when the straightforward answer is no is to go the other direction and piss off the other contingent of people who bought expecting a nonsense resolution. I personally would rather piss off that group, but that's just me. Anyways, good effort, hope the war does actually end soon.
@Gabrielle Doesn't have to be purely on vibes. You can have resolution criteria and also say that, due to the difficulty in covering all edge cases, you reserve the right to resolve according to the spirit of the question.
If it pisses off some people who thought they found a technicality to exploit, fine. That's the risk they take trying to defect on the epistemic commons & it should blow up in their face. That's better than pissing off the people who took a position based on what they actually believe, IMO.
@WilliamGunn (fwiw that's a very common stance on Manifold, you'll see that in explicitly in some markets! and many creators also adhere to that implicitly. the catch is that it's not worth ignoring the resolution criteria outright, otherwise why write them? traders need to see robustness of spirit AND law so they know they can trust the creator to use common sense but also stay within the box they created.)
From their comments, Gaz clearly wishes reality would have lined up better with these otherwise very reasonable criteria. the spirit was sincere and the criteria were written to try to define the space around that spirit. so many other war markets get stuck on technicalities of "is it officially a war?" "does ending up in a korean DMZ situation count as ongoing conflict or end of war?" and generally "how do you ever know a conflict is over without international intervention and formal peace treaties, which may never happen and all be thrown out the window before the end of the day anyway?" this market was a really good attempt at it even if nobody is totally satisfied, including Gaz, and despite the problems it really did do a good job of answering things in a way few other war markets do imo
@WilliamGunn Reminds me of this: https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/shenanigans
There will always be a shenanigan you didn't account for, even when attempting to account for all possible shenanigans.