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.
Update 2026-09-24 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): - The creator currently plans to resolve the market to Van Dyke if no other reporting or information emerges before the end of 2026.
1,000People are also trading
@Jack1 plan is still to resolve after the end of 2026 as stated in the description. In retrospect I should've probably given more flexible resolution timeline, but I'm a pretty big believer in not changing the parameters of a question after it's initially made (except to clarify things).
@Jack1 I do plan to resolve to Van Dyke if no other reporting or information emerges before then, though.
@Velaris dumbass probably had no opsec, all he needed to do was buy monero and then sit on the wallet for a few years until the heat goes down
@Quroe I was expecting him to have the common sense to do so. Generally, these people get away with everything, so why did justice have to prevail when it was unprofitable to me??
what are the odds Hegseth was aware or involved?
"*wink wink* here's some additional motivation to do the operation well"
Edit: and does it matter for this market?
@realDonaldTrump Premature I think - hasn't been convicted, we don't know for sure that nobody else was involved
@realDonaldTrump definitely looks likely to be this guy, but I'm going to give it a few weeks at least for other reporting to come out and confirm.
I looked up at the description and realized I never stated any criteria for early resolution (i.e prior to the end of 2026). There is some brief discussion of this at the very bottom of the comments. My default is still to wait til the end of 2026 because that's what I said in the description, but I'm open to persuasion if there is a strong consensus otherwise.
@shankypanky stuff like this are good fits for positive guidelines items like "consider the situation and if it is appropriate and matches your question, try to design markets that can resolve early when applicable"
@Eliza yeah - and to be clear, if I was doing it over again I would definitely come up with some criteria for early resolution. I just have a pretty strong bias towards "creators shouldn't alter the terms of markets after they're made unless absolutely necessary" as a normative mode of operation.
@MattP I can totally understand that. We were just recently having discussions about how to help creators remember these details at the time they make their markets or at least consider them. Sometimes early resolution is appropriate and sometimes it is not.
@Eliza yeah, a quick checklist of common things to remember when making a market might not go amiss! Could maybe even get an AI bot to read it and flag the user for any common stuff that might be missing?
@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.