Background
The Syrian civil war, ongoing since 2011, has entered a critical phase with rebel forces making significant advances against the Assad regime. Led by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), rebels have recently captured major cities including Aleppo, Hama, and Homs, and are advancing towards Damascus. Key international actors like Russia and Iran, traditionally Assad's strongest allies, are currently distracted by other conflicts and internal issues, potentially limiting their ability to intervene effectively.
Resolution Criteria
This market will resolve YES if armed conflict between multiple factions in Syria continues for more than 6 months after the fall of the Assad regime, where:
The "fall of the Assad regime" is defined as when Bashar al-Assad no longer exercises effective control over the Syrian government, either through resignation, capture, death, or exile
"Armed conflict" refers to sustained military operations between organized armed groups
The conflict must involve similar parties and dynamics as the current civil war (government forces, rebel groups, etc.)
The market will resolve NO if:
Armed conflict ceases or significantly diminishes within 6 months after Assad's fall
The conflict transforms into a fundamentally different type of conflict (e.g., purely terrorist insurgency)
The market will resolve N/A if:
The Assad regime has not fallen by January 1, 2026
The situation becomes too ambiguous to determine if the regime has truly "fallen"
Considerations
Post-Assad scenarios could include a power vacuum leading to new conflicts, regional fragmentation, or the emergence of new political structures. The involvement of international actors and the strength of various factions will likely influence whether the conflict continues in its current form.
Update 2025-06-24 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The creator has provided a significant clarification on the resolution criteria:
The only way the market will resolve NO is if the conditions for a YES resolution are not met by the close date. This appears to override the original N/A condition (if Assad has not fallen by the close date, the market will now resolve NO instead of N/A).
A NO resolution criteria in 6 months required a total stop to armed conflict, not just a significant diminishment, and is therefore irrelveant from now on.
The definition of armed conflict has been further specified:
Guerrilla warfare by semi-organized groups will count.
Plain terrorism will not count.
One-sided mass slaughter may not count.
Update 2026-01-12 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The creator plans to resolve this market as NO based on the situation up to the resolution date not being describable as a civil war, despite escalation in the current year.
The creator is offering to extend the market to the end of the year only if:
More than 60% of traders support the extension within a week
Nobody opposes the extension
Otherwise, the market will resolve NO as planned.
🏅 Top traders
| # | Trader | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ180 | |
| 2 | Ṁ24 | |
| 3 | Ṁ14 | |
| 4 | Ṁ12 | |
| 5 | Ṁ9 |
People are also trading
@traders
The situation up to the resolution date couldn't be described as a civil war. However, things have been escalating this year. I plan to resolve this market as NO, unless more than 60% of traders support prolonguing this to the end of the year within a week and nobody opposes it. Imo creating a follow up market makes more sense (similar but improved criteria, longer timeframe).
The AI resolution criteria was a bit problematic and contradictory, but the title and the closure date makes what I meant clearer:
This will only be resolved in 2026, except if there's proof of ~6 months of armed conflict since Assad's fall. Let's consider the 6 months NO resolution criteria as a total stop to armed conflict, which, as far as I am aware, has NOT happened, therefore the only way this resolved as NO is by failing to resolve as yes.
Plain terrorism won't count as yes, but guerrillas will (so long as they're at least semi organized & aren't totally irrelevant). One sided mass slaughter is debatable, as genocide/extermination isnt war (armed conflict contains conflict, not just slaughter).