Which country is primarily responsible for the recent attack on Nordstream 1 and 2? Resolves to the consensus as of March 31st 2023. This will only resolve to one answer, and if multiple answers are applicable I will choose the 'best' answer (most specific and correct). If two equivalent answers are applicable I will choose the first answer posted. If no country is responsible for the attack by current consensus, this will resolve N/A. If I believe that there is no consensus on this, this will resolve N/A.
For reference, this is the attack I am referring to: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63044747
Sep 27, 12:22pm: Which country is primarily responsible for the Nordstream attack? → Which country is primarily responsible for the Nordstream attack? (IF there is a consensus at close)
Sep 30, 10:15pm: Which country is primarily responsible for the Nordstream attack? (IF there is a consensus at close) → Which country is primarily responsible for the Nord Stream attack? (IF there is a consensus at close)
1,000
3.00There is now a similar market for next year: https://manifold.markets/NicholasCharette73b6/which-country-is-primarily-responsi-8c2ec1831e10
Okay, I am currently planning to resolve to N/A because of there seems to be no consensus. For example, the market itself is currently very divided between US and Russia, and Reuters claims that the explosions are “unexplained”: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/german-insurers-renew-cover-blast-damaged-nord-stream-gas-link-2023-04-04/
When I talk about consensus I (roughly) mean broad alignment either between the great majority of Western news sources or the great majority of non-US news sources.
I highly doubt that this market will not resolve N/A, but if anyone objects to my above understanding you can present your argument over the next week, after which I will resolve the market.
I'm thinking about delaying the resolution of this market until 3 months after close, in order to avoid some of the problems with the parimutuel betting system (if the answer is known at close, someone will be able to take basically all of the market's winnings). Though this is a change in the resolution criteria, I think everyone should be fine with this. Let me know if anyone betting here is not, and would like the market to resolve under the original criteria.
@NicholasCharette73b6 Hmm, I think changing the date for "Resolves to the consensus as of March 31st 2023" could affect how some predictions and might get some pushback. You could also consider leaving that date as is and changing the close date of the market earlier (perhaps mid March?). I generally think resolution criteria dates should not change unless there's a very good reason, whereas close dates are no big deal to change.
@jack I agree, I put a bunch on "me" because I thought there was solid chance of it resolving N/A by March 31st
@NicholasCharette73b6 @DesTiny @jack Ok, I agree with this argument. I've changed the close date to March 15 and have created a new, longer-term, multiple-choice market here: https://manifold.markets/NicholasCharette73b6/which-country-is-primarily-responsi-8c2ec1831e10
March 31 is getting pretty close, so "will there be a consensus" is starting to be the dominant consideration. I don't think the Hersch story is particularly credible, but if I try to imagine how there could be a broad consensus by March 31, one of the main possibilities is that the story gets independent confirmation now that it's out. So 53% feels too high for the question of "who did it?", but maybe about right for "conditional on broad consensus by March 31, who did it?"
@DesTiny Roughly what I mean is mainstream media consensus, and I will be conservative about resolving to N/A if there doesn’t actually seem to be a consensus. My goal is to resolve this to the satisfaction of something like 97% of market participants or, if there’s disagreement, just resolve N/A. If this market were to close right now, I would resolve N/A.
Also, I’ll post my planned resolution in the comments section for a week after close so people have time to correct me if I’m missing something.
@NicholasCharette73b6 so what you're saying is I can't just convince people in this market that it was me, but the entire world?
@DesTiny Yes, although you could probably be very efficient at it if you just convinced a few key media figures who could then convince everyone else.
@TANSTAAFL I think that it's because the market has been going on for so long and the US just went up. If you zoom in you can see:
