Resolves Yes if he is Governor through January 7th 2027.
Update 2026-09-26 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): - The market resolves based on whether Tim Walz finishes his term (ending when the next governor is inaugurated).
The literal date of January 7th, 2027 was a miscalculation and will not be used for resolution.
1,000People are also trading
@traders This was clearly a question about Tim Walz finishing his term. He announced he wasn't running for re-election before the question was created. I have a history of making clear questions on this website, not manipulation ones.
Imagine I purposely wrote the wrong inauguration day in the description and then resolved it the wrong way to farm Mana. That would be horrible, and probably get negative attention from mods and the community. You could literally do that with every election.
Do not n/a the market @HillaryClinton
If bettors want to be smart alecks thats their fault
The intent is so obviously clear
@Jack1 I agree, this would set a bad precedent. @spiderduckpig should just have asked for clarification.
@MachiNi @Jack1 @spiderduckpig Sorry for the confusion, but I just miscalculated the first the floating date they use to end the governor term in the description.
For reference, Tim Walz announced on January 5th 2026 he would not seek a 3rd term, which was about a month before this question was even created. So the question would be completely nonsensical in multiple ways if I used the date ultra literally in the description.
https://mn.gov/governor/newsroom/press-releases/?id=1055-718148
@HillaryClinton Shouldn't this resolve N/A then? If not, I may have misunderstood how the resolution rules work here, and I apologize.
@spiderduckpig Tim Walz literally announced he wouldn't run for reelection before this question was made. This was not a question about him running for reelection. I was simply confused about the floating inauguration day that changes every 4 years.
This was not meant to be a manipulation question or a misleading question.
@spiderduckpig ‘finish his term’
That’s obviously just an error, they saw he was sworn in on 7 Jan 2019 and assumed that 7 Jan was the date.
The intent of the question is obviously finish his term
@Jack1 yes we should ignore clearly stated resolution criteria and just go off of what we think the intent is, this will be a very good policy for prediction markets because clearly stated criteria are subjective and our interpretation of market intent is objective
@spiderduckpig come on, man. The market very clearly understood what was being asked otherwise it would have traded much lower.
@Jack1 Ok, I spent more time on Kalshi/Polymarket recently, where it is understood that titles are irrelevant and resolution is based on the precise, exact wording of the contracts being traded on. For example, imagine if real money was being staked on this market. Then people would gravitate towards using the most granular and definitive criteria stated. But I understand your point about the spirit of a market. To be honest I mostly just ignore titles because I thought only description mattered and I am used to trading on just description criteria, which I thought applied to manifold:
https://manifold.markets/ahalekelly/did-a-google-deepmind-ai-really-get#p4s6oki9vbf
@spiderduckpig so if title is irrelevant, How do you know who ‘he’ is, or what ‘he’ is governor of is? Because you read the title. And if you read the title you know what it’s asking
@spiderduckpig Well, actually that's not how Polymarket resolves. That's why Polymarket resolves that there was a peace deal between the US and Iran in July, and I complained that the text of the deal had not even been released yet, so how could it be resolved? And then they resolved YES anyway.
@TiredCliche Is this the market you are referring to? It doesn't look like they require the text of the deal in the rules:
This market will resolve to “Yes” if Iran and the United states agree to a permanent peace deal by the specified date, 11:59 PM ET. Otherwise, this market will resolve to “No”.
A permanent peace deal refers to any agreement which explicitly indicates that military hostilities between the United States and Iran have ended or will permanently cease, or uses equivalent language clearly signaling a lasting end to military hostilities between the United States and Iran. Agreements that are explicitly temporary or which do not include a definitive agreement to end military hostilities between the US and Iran on a lasting basis (e.g. a temporary extension of the two-week ceasefire agreement announced on April 7, 2026), will not qualify.
A qualifying agreement will be considered to have been established if either of the following conditions are met:
- The United States and Iran each sign or formally adopt a written agreement (e.g. a treaty or multi-point agreement) which meets the above criteria.
- Both the governments of the United States and Iran provide clear public confirmation that a qualifying agreement has been definitively established. Negotiations, statements of progress, or other statements which do not constitute a definitive announcement that a qualifying agreement has been reached will not count.
The primary resolution source for this market will be official information from the governments of the United States and Iran; however, a consensus of credible reporting may also be used.
@spiderduckpig The written agreement didn't meet the above criteria. The market resolved before anybody could read said written agreement.