At close.
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ495 | |
| 2 | Ṁ220 | |
| 3 | Ṁ198 | |
| 4 | Ṁ152 | |
| 5 | Ṁ122 |
@Gigacasting Since you’ve now posted, it sounds like you’ve seen my comment below and chosen to ignore it. Is that confirmation that this is not about “the market”?
On the assumption that this is indeed a self-resolving market. I would like to encourage YES holders to cash in their YES shares at a profit and switch from YES to NO. Perhaps you will make a profit twice! or even three times! As the market goes back and forth. Even just a couple people switching can cause uncertainty in the market
This is in “the market” group, which led me to believe it was about “the market”. A whale can’t change that at the last minute. However, I now see that the closing date is way in the future, which doesn’t make a lot of sense of this is about “the market”. While the description itself says nothing about “the market”,
is quite fond of terse resolution criteria, which led me to believe that adding it to the group was their way of stating this.
However, I’m now realizing that maybe someone else added it to that group by mistake, and this market is actually self-resolving. It would be great if Gigacasting could clarify here.
@Conflux Seems like @Gigacasting is not planning to weigh in, and in the meantime there’s been a pile-on of traders reading it the other way. I’m guessing at this point all three of these markets should probably be removed from the group?
@JimHays I’ll remove the tag - after all, traders think there’s a >78% chance it’s not about The Market. Gigacasting can do whatever they want, I think it’s kinda lame to be vague.