🏅 Top traders

I don’t want to keep debating in comments and risk people talking past each other, so signing off for now.

@mods this market needs to be reopened or resolved NA.

The issue here is that DOGE's status is fairly undefined and its employees are in questionable legal territory. Many members of DOGE (even originally, and continuing to today) are appointed as employees through other mechanisms, and their status in DOGE has always been questionable.

The articles referencing Coristine refer to him erroneously as an "ex-DOGE employee". What's more accurate is to say that he was confirmed to be "appointed as a DOGE staffer" at some point, later had a role/appointment in another agency as well, and his current status vis a vis DOGE remains, as it always has been, murky.

For example, Elon Musk was never officially hired/confirmed at any position with DOGE, and was listed as a special advisor to the president, despite the fact that he was de facto heading DOGE and there was never any doubt that he was "working for DOGE".

I'll also add that this question doesn't specify that the attempted physical assault must occur on a "DOGE employee", but rather "anyone working for DOGE". Coristine is pretty obviously "working for DOGE" despite having a placement in SSA (and formerly the GSA). In both of those cases, he was "working for DOGE".

The boundaries of government agencies, as well as their employees, aren't as well-defined as people complaining about this resolution seem to think, and DOGE itself is even LESS well-defined than your typical government agency.

Complicating this is some erroneous reporting from the Guardian:

The Guardian reported that Coristine had left DOGE. They were in fact incorrect, as subsequent NYT reporting demonstrated.

Check out this article and headline:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jun/24/doge-big-balls-edward-coristine-resigns

"Doge employee ‘Big Balls’ has resigned, says White House official"

and then from one day later:

The Guardian article was simply mistaken. Coristine had not left DOGE or the federal service, and in fact was being moved from a DOGE placement in GSA to a DOGE placement in SSA.

There are many DOGE employees placed in a variety of federal agencies and SSA is not unique.

Later in the NYT article:

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/24/us/politics/big-balls-edward-coristine-musk-doge.html

I see no evidence since then that indicates he has ceased activities working with DOGE, and I think the Guardian article, which was never retracted, is causing confusion here. They simply never corrected the record after the White House official relayed the internal miscommunication.

Thus, this should resolve YES.

I made a profit of 100 mana on this question, but I honestly didn't remember what position I had held until now, at the end of this comment, lol, but I guess I could be biased retroactively by this, somehow.

@bens @IsaacKing @JeffBerman

@bens This makes sense, thank you. What confused me was that Crone said

“anyone working at DOGE” implies a current employee, whereas this was a former employee of DOGE

And you replied

eh, I feel like the criteria didn't specify, and the framing of the news story was very much highlighting his affiliation with DOGE.

Which appeared to accept the premise that he used to work for DOGE and does not anymore. If the contention is that his current position qualifies, then I have no strong opinion on the matter.

@bens your assertions are false.

It wasn’t one, erroneous article in the Guardian. Many outlets have reported that he no longer works for DOGE or the Trump administration, including Wired, who reported that he is no longer a part of DOGE according to the White House, that he is no longer on the list of current employees, and that he no longer has GSA credentials. The fact that he now works for SSA is ironic but not relevant.

Furthermore, as I’ve noted twice already, when asked if Elon Musk counted as a DOGE employee @JeffBerman said:

As long as he’s working for DOGE.

This makes it clear that there WAS potentially some ambiguity about whether Musk himself was working for DOGE since he was never appointed.

Asserting based on that that the definition of “working for DOGE” is circular. The media articles are qualifying based on lists of employees! That is clear and not vague.

@IsaacKing you can call me Archibald.

@BlueDragon Yes, all of these articles had the same source (a White House spokesperson) which was then corrected by that source (a White House spokesperson) within 24 hours. It was revealed to be a miscommunication.

You can see this NYT piece for information about why DOGE is pretty opaque and any lists on who "officially work for it" are incomplete and missing context:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/02/27/us/politics/doge-staff-list.html

Basically, it doesn't make much sense to think of DOGE as an independent agency with an explicit list of employees. It's not a congressionally created agency, it exists as a loose organization of quasi-special advisors who then get "official" positions in different agencies. Each large federal agency has a couple of DOGE ppl situated within it. It's very likely (though I guess not 100% certain) that this is the arrangement Coristine has within the SSA. You can see from the above article that he has held some sort of official or unofficial position now within several other agencies.

@bens you make it sound like a single source making a mistake that was then corrected, reported by the Guardian and then picked up elsewhere. This is a false narrative.

He resigned from the GSA and DOGE. He was rehired by SSA. Yes, as reported in Wired (independent of the Guardian) in the same article I cited above, he worked across a bunch of different agencies while working for DOGE and was on the payroll through GSA, but he resigned from DOGE, as the White House confirmed:

Coristine received full-time employment status at the GSA late last month, as reported by WIRED. As of Tuesday afternoon, his Google Workspace account with the General Services Administration (GSA) was no longer active, according to a source with direct knowledge. His name also no longer appears on a White House contact list of current DOGE employees on the federal payroll maintained by a senior administration official, the official says.

https://www.wired.com/story/big-balls-coristine-doge-resigned-us-government/

Note that SSA is not listed by the NYTimes in the list of places he worked as a DOGE staffer. That is because he is a former DOGE staffer, as has been widely reported, and not only by one erroneous Guardian report.

Coristine’s rehiring comes after a White House official told WIRED on Tuesday that the 19-year-old had resigned from his position in government. A Trump administration official confirms to WIRED that Coristine did indeed resign on Monday, and then was brought back by the SSA later in the week.

https://www.wired.com/story/big-balls-social-security-administration/

The Hill also reporting that Big Balls resigned from DOGE and joined SSA in a separate role:

“Edward Coristine joined the Social Security Administration this week as a Special Government Employee,” SSA spokesperson Stephen McGraw said in a statement to The Hill. “His work will be focused on improving the functionality of the Social Security website and advancing our mission of delivering more efficient service to the American people.”

The White House confirmed to The Hill this week that Cortisine, whose “Big Balls” nickname comes from the moniker he has used online, resigned from his DOGE position.

Here is his entry on Wikipedia (he resigned from DOGE in June).

He is clearly still beloved by both Musk and Trump, and yes for sure DOGE is a shirfty bunch, but your position is based on conjecture, not evidence.

Would you take this even further and try to argue that Big Balls was carjacked BECAUSE of his association with DOGE?

This market can’t resolve YES based on the carjacking of Big Balls.

@IsaacKing Thanks, I agree with your view here. "Is he still working for DOGE" is a far better question to be debating, and does in fact seem not trivial. I agree with your sentiment re:

eh, I feel like the criteria didn't specify, and the framing of the news story was very much highlighting his affiliation with DOGE.

@BlueDragon the Wikipedia article very clearly does NOT say he resigned from DOGE, lol, but rather his role in the GSA

In fact, in the wiki article it’s made clear that even his INITIAL role at DOGE (which no one is disputing) was formally a position within the OPM. This is because DOGE employees are financed and hired through many mechanisms and DOGE itself is a loose, informal organization, not a well-defined agency with a particular hiring structure.

@bens @IsaacKing @EvanDaniel there is no evidence he is still working for DOGE. Even if you narrow to only this point, this market was resolved prematurely, based on conjecture, not evidence.

@BlueDragon and no, I would not argue that he was carjacked because of his association with DOGE. But that’s not the point of the market.

A famous and reported-on member of DOGE was clearly physically assaulted in DC, and not only that, but this has been since used as a clear pretext for the national guard mobilizing in the capital. I don’t really understand how this isn’t (1) in the spirit of the question and (2) meets the explicit criteria of the question.

@BlueDragon I don’t understand where you think the burden of proof lies

>There is reporting he was a part of DOGE as late as June.

>There was reporting indicating he had left DOGE and the government, which was quickly repudiated as false by public sources.

>DOGE keeps no formal list of its employees and affiliates.

@bens I don’t know what your screenshot is meant to show. It is nothing I haven’t explicitly acknowledged.

Coristine was later made a permanent federal employee in the General Services Administration before resigning in June 2025 and taking a job at the Social Security Administration

You are nitpicking, but the fact remains that your argument is based on conjecture and made in bad faith.

@BlueDragon What is the "proof" that would lead you to believe he is still affiliated with DOGE?

Because from my perspective, the burden of proof lies on reporting indicating that he no longer works with DOGE. There were, as you say, articles alleging that he resigned from DOGE, but the day after these were published, White House spokespeople publicly repudiated this reporting, saying that rather than leaving the government he was simply moving between agencies.

Since we know he was affiliated with DOGE during his time at OPM and GSA, I see no reason to believe that affiliation hasn't continued at SSA.

I don't like the accusations that I'm arguing based on "conjecture" and " in bad faith" as I've actually devoted a good deal of time researching this situation, and the structure of DOGE in general, and have probably thought about the explicit limitations in understanding scenarios like these far more than you have. I also work with the government and know many people that have interacted with DOGE placements in a variety of agencies, and I'm telling you... you're just wrong here. I don't want to keep litigating this question and I truly don't care about the profit because I think I spent 250 mana on this question which is a pittance, but you're welcome to believe what you want.

@bens please see above, as I already laid this out. To restate:

• You are asserting, without proof, that he is still part of DOGE to justify a yes resolution on a market asking whether an “anyone working for DOGE”

• Trump and Musk may see him as “part of DOGE” because they see him as “part of the team”, but the general consensus in the media and others is that he stopped working for DOGE when he left GSA.

• You claim he “works for DOGE” because the organization is loosely organized, because you don’t trust the Guardian, etc etc but offer nothing but conjecture to support this claim.

• You assert as proof a New York Times article that lays out how secretive and informal the DOGE organization is, yet ignore the fact that in the entry for Constantine, the article does not link his current position to DOGE (which they definitely would if there were any evidence.

@bens I will also note that while some articles do refer to him as an "ex-DOGE staffer":
https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/teen-suspects-in-ex-doge-staffer-attempted-carjacking-case-to-stay-in-custody/3973993/

other, more credible reporting, such as Politico, use more nuance:

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/08/05/trump-administration-staffer-known-as-big-balls-assaulted-in-dc-00494990?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR7st1O1W5zg_ELQp5znf6mkLfSdpXQju8ort0P-0-1YCAeMu3znIDsQ0uAwoA_aem_UGLSRtT0GPEdQseBYEcr0A

You'll note that Politico refers to Marco as a "fellow DOGE staffer", quotes an Elon Musk tweet that refers to Coristine as presumably currently a "DOGE team member", and notes the vagueness in his positions in the government by stating he "played an early role in DOGE's efforts" and has held key roles in DOGE's efforts across a number of agencies.

Given the question "Is Coristine currently working for DOGE", I would say that it's of course impossible to know with 100% certainty, but it's also impossible to know with 100% certainty whether ANY member of DOGE is currently "working for DOGE," except for Amy Gleason, who is the acting director. All other members are in special advisory positions, are for the most part, unreported and embedded within other agencies or acting extra-jurisdictionally outside of the government altogether, it appears. Based on a common sense interpretation, Coristine is absolutely a member of DOGE currently.

@BlueDragon

I'll respond to each of your points:

You are asserting, without proof, that he is still part of DOGE to justify a yes resolution on a market asking whether an “anyone working for DOGE”

I have presented numerous articles highlighting his affiliation with DOGE.

Trump and Musk may see him as “part of DOGE” because they see him as “part of the team”, but the general consensus in the media and others is that he stopped working for DOGE when he left GSA.

This is in fact not the general consensus. Most high quality reporting is vague on his affiliation with DOGE due to the vague nature of DOGE itself. There is absolutely no consensus that he stoped working for DOGE when he left the GSA, and the NYT article I presented earlier explicitly denies this and presents explicit sources explaining this rationale.

You claim he “works for DOGE” because the organization is loosely organized, because you don’t trust the Guardian, etc etc but offer nothing but conjecture to support this claim.

See above.

You assert as proof a New York Times article that lays out how secretive and informal the DOGE organization is, yet ignore the fact that in the entry for Constantine, the article does not link his current position to DOGE (which they definitely would if there were any evidence.

There is no "link to his current position with DOGE" because no DOGE staffers have this, since DOGE employees are not reported officially. Additionally, there is reporting from as late as June highlighting his continued affiliation with DOGE despite his "official" position changing between multiple federal agencies.

@bens

A famous and reported-on member of DOGE was clearly physically assaulted in DC, and not only that, but this has been since used as a clear pretext for the national guard mobilizing in the capital. I don’t really understand how this isn’t (1) in the spirit of the question and (2) meets the explicit criteria of the question.

I agree that he was at one time a member of DOGE, and was assaulted. I don't think whether the assault was because of his affiliation matters to this market in the slightest (I don't think it was related). I think the original inspiration for the question was based around an assumption that it might matter, but that's complicated to figure out, so I suspect the question intentionally avoided that potentially thorny detail by just asking about all assaults instead.

So I think the questions of "was he a member of DOGE at the time of the assault?" and "does the question cover former DOGE members?" are the only things in question. I think the answer to the latter should be "no", and I haven't read enough of the linked sources yet to have a strong opinion on the former.

@EvanDaniel the answer to the former question is YES. People are confused because the reporting seems mixed on this (some articles refer to him as an ex-DOGE staffer, others refer to him as though he continues to be affiliated with DOGE).

I've shown that the reason for the confusion is a misunderstanding about a White House statement on Coristine from about 2 months ago. The statement was misinterpreted, the press ran with it, the next day the White House corrected the record, and the NYT reported on the situation, explaining that Coristine was not in fact leaving the government.

There's also some confusion because some ppl seem to think that if he's at SSA that means he is no longer with DOGE. In fact, during his time that no one disputes he was at DOGE, he moved between the OPM, the GSA, and several other agencies. I see no reason to believe that his latest position at SSA has somehow led to him no longer being affiliated with DOGE.

DOGE employees are enmeshed into other agencies as part of DOGE's structure. It's not a mutually exclusive position that he left when he entered the SSA. Archibald seems not to believe me about this, but I think, respectfully, he doesn't know what the heck he is talking about.

@bens please note that when I call out bad faith arguments and false narratives I am not insulting you personally. I am pointing at the flaws in your logic.

@EvanDaniel I hear ya, and mostly agree. Just on this:

from my perspective, the burden of proof lies on reporting indicating that he no longer works with DOGE.

This is not how market resolutions on this platform can work. The burden of proof is on proving that YES there was a physical assault on someone working for DOGE. If there is ambiguity or uncertainty, particularly before the resolution date, it is not appropriate to resolve and then claim additional “burdens of proof” are required to reopen.

I don't think whether the assault was because of his affiliation matters to this market in the slightest (I don't think it was related). I think the original inspiration for the question was based around an assumption that it might matter, but that's complicated to figure out, so I suspect the question intentionally avoided that potentially thorny detail by just asking about all assaults instead.

I agree with you that it wasn’t related, but that it was part of the spirit of the question. It’s worth acknowledging because it explains the context behind when Musk claims “a team member was assaulted” and Trump cites this incident as a mitigating factor in his decision to federalize law enforcement in DC. But we can’t sidestep this thorny question and then allow others to cite these men’s unsubstantiated claims as evidence for the resolution.

@BlueDragon okay here's a WIRED article referring to Coristine as a current DOGE employee and providing evidence for this at several points in the article:

https://www.wired.com/story/edward-coristine-big-balls-assaulted-alleged-carjacking/

It also implies that ANOTHER DOGE staffer was the woman who was attacked as well, so perhaps if there still remains ambiguity, that should lead to this resolving YES as well.

@bens I have responded to and refuted your points. You are saying nothing new, just repeating them without taking it in.

And now you are really reaching to find another person who was assaulted as evidence for the resolution.

This is not personal or an attack on you. As a mod and someone who profited from this resolution, it’s important we examine what you are saying, for the integrity of the platform.

Evidence that would prove someone working for DOGE was physically assaulted:

• Someone is assaulted while conducting any business under the umbrella of DOGE

• Someone associated with DOGE is targeted because of that association

• An employee of DOGE is physically assaulted

These criteria have not been met. Instead the edge cases were ignored, the market resolved on vibes, and then you, a mod who profited, are working hard to justify that retroactively.

@BlueDragon I will note once again, that the market title does not say "an employee of DOGE" but rather "anyone working for DOGE". This is good, because many people with explicit roles in DOGE are not in fact "employees of DOGE" due to the way its hiring has been structured.

That being said, both Emily Bryant and Edward Coristine are in fact "working for DOGE" and they have been assaulted, based on police reports.