MOD ENFORCED CRITERIA
Resolution criteria
This market resolves YES if Trump or his administration takes any military, economic, or political action intended to interfere with Greenland's governance, sovereignty, or territorial status before the end of 2026. This includes: military intervention, economic coercion (targeted tariffs or sanctions against Greenland or Denmark), attempted annexation, military occupation, or formal diplomatic pressure through the government of Greenland to cede control. The market resolves NO if no such interference occurs by December 31, 2026.
THE FOLLOWING DESCRIPTION MAY HAVE USEFUL CONSIDERATIONS, BUT IS NOT BINDING
Resolution criteria
This market will resolve “YES” if Trump or his administration takes any direct action intended to interfere with Greenland. This must be done directly through the government of Greenland itself.
Background
Trump has renewed calls for U.S. annexation of Greenland following public comments from Trump and the wife of top adviser Stephen Miller. Trump has previously refused to rule out the use of military or economic force to take Greenland. In a 45-minute phone conversation with Danish PM Frederiksen, Trump stated there is reason to believe he is serious in his statements about his increasing interest in Greenland.
Considerations (Denmark)
As Denmark owns Greenland, territorial integrity must be respected. Any actions taken by Trump that affects Denmark’s economy would have a knock-on financial effect on Greenland. Any such actions implemented or the use of military methods would also resolve in “YES”
: Additional non-kinetic actions that would result in YES resolution (Must be done by Trump or his administration):
Media Manipulation: Use of propaganda, disinformation, and control of media narratives that prove to change the opinions of the people of Greenland
Social & Psychological Influence: Targeting the beliefs, emotions, and behaviours of Greenland's population
Economic Coercion against Greenland or Denmark: Disruption of communication networks, power grids, and financial systems including the use of tariffs/sanctions
Any deal imposed on Greenland that upsets the Greenlanders/Government would resolve YES as that constitutes interference
The creator will prioritize statements from the government of Greenland when evaluating resolution
The creator has reiterated that threats through other countries are not in line with the markets purpose. The market focuses on Trump's DIRECT interference with the government of GREENLAND itself, which would require:
A formal meeting including confirmation from the Greenland government that threats were made or intimidation was caused.
A casual/formal visit to Greenland which the government states was an intimidation/a threat.
Direct phone calls to Greenland's leader which causes uproar
Letters/emails..
Update 2026-03-01 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Tariffs on Greenland: If Trump implements tariffs specifically on Greenland, this would count as interference and resolve YES.
Military ships sent to Greenland: This will count as interference and resolve YES if Greenland makes a statement saying they feel threatened by it.
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Trader | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ3,873 | |
| 2 | Ṁ1,724 | |
| 3 | Ṁ1,209 | |
| 4 | Ṁ887 | |
| 5 | Ṁ678 |
People are also trading
@Gemc for the record to those watching, mods don't have any special access to your private user data (afaik --and I'm one of the original mods). I also don't know of any case of us using email to sort something out unless it was with a personal connection one of us already had an email for. maybe an admin emailed them to start a conversation? idfk
@Gemc It was not original. It was added in v16 of the description, on Jan 16th.
I think there's a pretty reasonable case to be made that if people wanted to complain about that change they should have done so at the time, and that those changes should stand as part of the market.
But that rhymes with logic that says that if threatening social media posts were enough, they should have been enough to resolve the first time around: https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/116620553611959468
@EvanDaniel It was not “added”, it was clarified 8 months ago, not long after the market was created. Anyway, the previous mod left my opinion and stepped back
Since @Stralor is stepping back from this, I'll look into it.
What was the precipitating event that is the source of the proposed resolution?
I don't actually think the media manipulation clause matters, or at least I haven't seen anything that suggests it does.
Media Manipulation: Use of propaganda, disinformation, and control of media narratives that prove to change the opinions of the people of Greenland
How have the opinions of the people of Greenland changed? I assume this clause is asking about some sort of mass propaganda campaign such that the people of Greenland... what? Throw out their government? Decide to abandon Denmark? Blow up other aliances or want to join the US? I'm having trouble understanding how anecdotal reports that children are scared count. Could you spell it out for me?
It doesn't sound like illegal drilling rises to the standards of a Yes resolution.
@EvanDaniel You missed out this part -
Social & Psychological Influence: Targeting the beliefs, emotions, and behaviours of Greenland's population
@EvanDaniel How is illegal drilling not interference? If I come dig up your yard, have I interfered with it?
@EvanDaniel @ChurlishGambit crazy right! And I was told that I was to resolve this market on my own when I asked for help from the previous Mod so I did that. Why are you now involved? I'm confused?
@Gemc Very bizarre level of malign interference from the mod team on this particular market, for no sane reason
Social & Psychological Influence: Targeting the beliefs, emotions, and behaviours of Greenland's population
Ah, I wasn't really looking at that because the prior discussion was all about the "media manipulation" clause.
How is illegal drilling not interference? If I come dig up your yard, have I interfered with it?
Because this market isn't using some vibesy definition of "any interference", it's using a definition that requires "Trump or his administration takes any direct action intended to interfere with Greenland". Someone linked with Trump doing a thing in an unofficial non-Administration capacity sounds much more like indirect interference.
Why are you now involved?
Because this is a contentious market and traders have asked for mod assistance with ensuring the resolution is carried out in accordance with the market criteria that you wrote, including that your changes to it reasonably count as clarifications rather than drastic changes to the criteria.
@EvanDaniel How would your opinion change if you seen a president post this about your country? Is that a serious question? And this photo posted here in which I based my resolution upon “media manipulation .I do not need your Mod drama again. I offered for the market to be taken down or resolved N/A but it was declined. There was ONE trader who requested a Mod at the beginning, but no one has tagged another Mod since the previous Mod made their decision. Please could you either delete this market, accept it, or resolve N/A.
@EvanDaniel This is a weird amount & intensity of interference from the mods
>Because this market isn't using some vibesy definition of "any interference",
My example wasn't "vibesy," it's actual interference.
& if you're going to be meddling in an official capacity, you shouldn't be condescending while you do it.
@ChurlishGambit I agree! I am so sorry about all of this. I offered the previous mod to resolve it as N/A or make the decision, but they wouldn't and told me to decide on my own. Now I have decided I have another mod doing the same thing despite no one else requesting a mod since the other one stepped down. No idea what is going on, but it is not fair to my investors. Their reasoning is laughable.
@EvanDaniel You and your previous mod haven't studied the topic as much as I have in order to create this market. I have been following news updates on this as I genuinely have an interest (as I am sure you take an interest in certain areas). So dictating my resolution based upon reading a few quick things isnt going to reach the standard of knowlage I have to understand and resolve this market correctly
That is why I am trying to ask questions and understand what I'm missing!
My example wasn't "vibesy," it's actual interference.
Sure, but I think it counts as indirect interference, not direct, which is what this market is about. The point is that it doesn't matter whether it's "interference", it matters whether it's "direct interference", and my current view is that the drilling is indirect and I haven't seen anyone explain why it's otherwise.
@EvanDaniel Look, if mods are to be interfering with markets or overturning decisions then you should at least have knowledge on the topic because the what's and why's make a lot more sense. I sold out of this market and made a loss. So it was not for my own benefit. This is a complex topic that needs studying because “quick questions and quick answers” isnt going to give you a clear view on reasoning. You will need to watch and read a lot to get the full picture.
Investors are usually attracted to markets that they have knowledge in, which is why before the interference of the other mod I had 18 5-star reviews against 2 1-star reviews. And this market was only flagged by one investor
@Bandors Sorry about that and I understand. Mods should not get involved if they are going to change the criteria and then leave the market open. This has just caused 2 sides whereas some have listened to the Mod, and others have accepted my decision. The Mod did not even take over the market when I asked, they just left it to me, the offer was there. I have given you some MANA and I am truly sorry about this.
@Gemc There isn't a "no mods allowed, trade at your own risk" section of Manifold, much as I think that could be neat. Mods get involved to try to make sure that markets are run well, and that includes resolving according to what's written down, within the bounds of reasonable discretion and clarification. Those bounds are wide, but not infinite. Our goal is to make sure the site supports everyone, as best we can, and that includes trying to balance creator discretion against the needs of traders to have predictable markets that are interpreted in normal and expected fashions.
I'm sorry you don't like how this is being handled; I'm trying to do a careful job of it and understand the details and history before I (potentially) take any action.
The idea that a newcomer to the market (me) can't possibly understand it well enough to trade in it or understand what events would or wouldn't resolve it is not a good thing! That sort of statement belongs with a market that has a very loose description and "traders beware" warnings on it, not ones with carefully written descriptions and plenty of clarifications.
@EvanDaniel The previous Mod stepped away, no one else asked for another Mod after that. Stop with the drama please and just make a decision. It is not fair to everyone. And you have twisted what we were discussing here into your own words
@EvanDaniel You clearly do not know much about what is going on in Greenland as you have been questioning me and @ChurlishGambit about events
@EvanDaniel A mod already came in, meddled, then walked away. Why did you choose to come back in & cause new problems? What is the goal of this disruption?