As described here: https://www.wsj.com/world/americas/maduro-polymarket-bet-a2e5d100
I will resolve after the end of 2026 based on my own appraisal of the consensus of publicly available, credible reporting at that time (not based on my own speculation).
I may resolve to partial probabilities if there has been some reporting but it does not rise to the level of consensus or near-certainty in my view. I do not plan to get overly granular about the probabilities in this hypothetical partial resolution case - it's gonna be something like "50% we don't find out, 50% this person" or "25% we don't find out, 50% this person, 25% that person" if I go that route. I'll be mentally rounding probabilities above 90% or below 10% to 100% and 0% respectively when I resolve.
Feel free to add answers (I'm making the market partially in the hopes people will do research to find likely candidates I don't know about) but please note that duplicate answers will be ignored (the first one wins), as will any answers that do not refer to a specific, named person (other than "we don't find out").
I will only resolve directly to "other" if we find out before the end of 2026, but no one has added the person's name as an answer. I do not expect this to happen - resolution will almost certainly be a named person, "we don't find out", or some combination of the above as described above if applicable.
Update 2026-01-07 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): General categories are not valid answers on this market. All answers must refer to a specific, named person (except for the "we don't find out" option).
Update 2026-01-07 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Future answers that clearly do not meet the criteria (i.e., do not refer to a specific, named person) cannot be later edited to become valid. Such answers will be permanently invalid and will not be eligible for resolution even if edited later to include a correct name.
Update 2026-01-09 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): If the trader worked through an intermediary or broker who operated the Polymarket account, the market will resolve to whoever was driving the trade in order to personally benefit financially, not necessarily the person who physically operated the account. The resolution will be based on who made the decision and stood to receive the majority of the winnings, even if a minority cut went to a broker or intermediary.
Update 2026-01-12 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): In the case of a true 50/50 split between two individuals, the market will resolve 50/50 between them. However, the creator will make an effort to resolve to the "mastermind" behind the trade if it is reasonable to identify one person as the primary decision-maker, even in cases of shared stakes.
Update 2026-01-13 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Resolution will be based on a consensus of credible reporting. Vague rumors from a single source will not be sufficient for resolution. The market will resolve after the end of 2026 as originally stated.
1,000People are also trading
@MattP He was willing to leak the maduro operation to some WAPO reporter for either notoriety, personal belief, or pussy. He was probably also willing to leak it for money.
@marvingardens good question!
My tentative ruling would be that it resolves to whoever was driving the trade in order to personally benefit financially, whether or not they actually had the browser tab open themselves.
So if someone had a broker-esque relationship with the operator of the account, in which they told them to make the trade and stood to eventually receive the majority of the winnings (even if a some minority cut went to the broker), I would resolve to that decision-maker.
Thoughts?
@MattP Okay, what if a named individual on this market had a 50% stake in this trade, and an unnamed partner had the other 50%?
@marvingardens in the event of a true 50/50 split I'd resolve 50/50 - but I'll be making an effort to resolve to the "mastermind" behind it if at all reasonable.
@MattP So let's say we suddenly get some news information that indicates Marco Rubio profited from this Polymarket trade somehow, that he made vaguely six figures in this Polymarket market. From our prior discussion, I would assume that this is not enough information to resolve this market.
@marvingardens I plan to resolve based on a consensus of credible reporting, so vague rumors from a single source would not apply. I'm also still holding the "after 2026" resolution - haven't been persuaded to change my mind on that one.
I quite like this market. If we look at it as a market for kiwis, it's asking for someone to show up and make info public, in order to make tons of mana.
@DannyqnOht that's my thought! I'm super curious so I'm willing to pay at least this small amount for the answer.
Sounds like if I really want to know though, I should boost liquidity to $400k worth of mana. I will take this under consideration.
I think Bayesian's strategy of limit orders is the right way to incentivize a hypothetical person to reveal hypothetical information. (Be warned, this will also incentivize liars).
A huge limit order for YES on "we won't find out" makes it so that someone with insider info can make more mana, without committing any of your own mana until they are actually ready to bet.
The cheapest way for you to do this is to put your limit order at like, buying for 20c. The most juicy looking way to attract someone to reveal info, is to put your limit order right at the edge, at say 80c. In the first way, the info provider gets 20 mana for every 80 they spend; on the other side, the provider gets 80 mana for every 20 they spend.
Also, we want to make sure the info provider has access to a big loan. Which means they might need to get someone with capital on board that their info is legit, before telling the market about it. So some capital-providing-person should probably offer secrecy in exchange for hearing out what info someone has.
Hey look, I just reinvented the private banking industry 🙃
@traders , I want your opinions: should I edit the description with criteria for early (aka before Jan 1st 2027) resolution?
As originally written I assumed the question would not be resolved til the end of 2026 - but if a credible reporting consensus develops before then, would y'all want me to have the option to resolve early or wait til the end of 2027 regardless of circumstances?
I lean towards leaving it as-is since there's always the possibility of new evidence emerging after an initial consensus and since people who predict will should be able to realize their gains early anyway since the very likely answers will be bid up highly - but I'm open to changing that if there's a strong trader preference to go the other way.
@MattP I'd prefer early resolution if there's a consensus, I think manifold has a mechanism for unresolving in extraordinary circumstances anyways
@MattP The unresolve emergency power should be kept as a break-glass-in-case-of-emergency power, in my opinion. If there's a chance, there's a chance.
@ChangAnthony please update this to refer to a specific named person. General categories are not valid answers on this market.
You can't just put a placeholder answer and then plan to edit it later after the name becomes public haha.
I'll give it til the end of the day (I'm in the US, so let's say until I wake up tomorrow around 6 am CST) for an actual name to show up but after that I'm declaring this answer permanently invalid* if it is still a vague category and not a name.
*(which, to be clear, means I will not resolve to this answer even if you later edit it to the person it ends up being - I'll instead resolve to whoever else adds the name as an answer)
@MattP Eitan Levi is a potential suspect, and is a potential civilian associate within the extended personal network of a U.S. Delta Force member
@MattP Eitan Levi (is a civilian associate within the extended personal network of a U.S. Delta Force member)
@Bayesian Anthony said Eitan Levi is who he meant, so the answer will refer to him. shrug
@Bayesian oh, sorry for the confusion! I had intended to give the answer creator a chance to edit it in a timely manner with a specific person, but I can see how that could cause problems. Should I just permanently invalidate answers which don't meet the criteria rather than allowing a chance to edit, do you think?
@MattP that’s my preference for my own markets and is typically what happens but i guess ‘slightly broad category gets narrowed down to a subelement’ is the case where it’s most acceptable to rename esp if it’s a new answer, which it is. imo you should keep it as is (or i mean imo you should do whatever you feel like doing but that's what i would do)
@Bayesian yeah I can see the argument both ways. I was trying to avoid clutter from him making a new answer (and him losing the mana for creation if the mistake was accidental) - but there's potential for abuse and confusion there.
I think I'll let this one stand to avoid more back-and-forth, but I'll make a ruling that *future* added answers which clearly do not meet the criteria cannot be later edited to become valid. Tightest way to handle it, I think.
We'll preserve answer name edits just for stuff like fixing typos or adding clarification.
@MattP hes part of a group of 13 alts that like to play tricks to scam mana. dont be afraid to make them lose mana.